 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NESHAPs Stakeholder Meeting Summary
November 18, 1997
Here is a synopsis of NESHAP stakeholder's meeting, written by Craig Moody of the Univ of Minnesota. Overheads from the meeting are available as well.
Bruce Jordan, Director of the Emissions Standards Division of EPA, kicked off the meeting by trying to calm fears that this process automatically would result in a listing of R&Ds as major sources under NESHAPs. He made it clear that listing would not obligate EPA to regulate R&Ds. He did say, however, that if EPA did not receive sufficient information to characterize emissions from R&Ds, they would in all likelihood be listed. If listing were to occur, EPA would be forced to send letters to all prospective R&Ds with a request for information on magnitude of emissions, which would have to be complied with under penalty of law. The reason for going through this stakeholder process was for the Agency and us as interested parties to avoid a formal request for information and accumulate enough information to make a decision on whether to list. Jordan stated that EPA does not have the necessary resources to go out and gather this information themselves, and he wants the potentially regulated community to "share e pain" of gathering this information.
He stated that EPA does not have a predisposition going into this process. If the data indicates that R&D emissions are not significant, they won't regulate. He made it clear that EPA does not feel it has sufficient information on magnitude of emissions to make this determination at this time.
The two regulatory situations that EPA is concerned with are the stand alone major R&D sources and R&D facilities collocated with major sources. Although EPA has the authority to regulate area R&D sources, they do not see any reason to do that. They reiterated their position that if a collocated source is major for HAPs, an R&D located at the same site is also major.
Jordan made it clear that EPA is not anxious to regulate academic R&D emissions. They want clear data which would show that academic emissions are not significant.
Jordan then solicited comments from around the room and industry, military, DOE, and academic representatives gave comments:
- Variety of laboratories, one listing and regulation does not fit all
- Is their flexibility to exclude control technology? Maybe.
- Cost to assure that a facility is not covered by a regulation exceeds the environmental benefit of regulation
- Excessive regulation and control can hold up R&D that leads to life saving products.
- What is the basis of concern for regulating R&Ds? Air toxics mandate from Congress. This is not a health based regulatory process but strictly a technology based process. Identify the emissions and risks and apply the control technology.
- Why not use SARA 313 as the basis for data gathering and establishing significance? These regulations do not cover the same chemicals as HAPs.
- What about selecting a more toxic subgroup of the 187 HAPs for regulation? We could use a subgroup for determining theresholds and who is covered, but by statute must regulate all HAPs listed.
- We need to distinguish pilot plant emissions from bench top lab emissions.
- We need to discuss the differences between combustion source emissions and R&D emissions. One source has little to do with the other.
Keith Barnett, staff from EPA, discussed the information gathered to date:
There were 110 commenters to the ANPR, including 30 academic and 3 state agencies. A synopsis of the comments was presented and will be included as part of his presentation to be e-mailed to representives shortly.
Since the ANPR, he has been out looking at some facilities (including EPA labs and pharmaceutical industry labs). Also, he has looked at 21 different state agencies for emissions information on regulated sources. As previously stated, he still does not feel he has sufficient information on magnitude of emissions. Barnett has been looking at facilities as well as control technology. Control technology has included everything from catalytic combusters to carbon filters (which I believe are most prevalent).
EPA has identified 2-3 stand alone major sources and a significant collocated facility. Most pilot plants have emission controls, and the majority of emissions appear to occur from pilot plants. ( I suspect that pilot plants and industry R&Ds in general are way ahead of academic facilities in estimating emissions magnitude.)
The MACT floor under NESHAPs regulations is based on the best controlled industry source. Under NESHAPs requirements, promulgation would occur two years after listing of major sources.
Barnett then went on to discuss EPA information needs:
- List of stand alone and collocated R&D facilities. He asked me as CSHEMA rep whether we could provide a list for academics. Cheri Hildreth cautioned me that CSHEMA does not represent the gamut of either large or small institutions.
- Actual HAPs emissions estimates from bench top and pilot plant R&D facilities
- Plant wide HAPs emissions. There was of course quite a bit of discussion on this since the point of the discussion was to focus on emissions from R&Ds themselves. We obviously do not want to engage in an estimate without a method. Barnett stated that EPA would not specify a method at this time but require facilities that respond to qualify their methods. This approach seemed to be a concensus of the majority of representatives within the room.
- Regulatory thresholds and permit requirements within states
- Inherent or operating limitations on PTE. This has been discussed in our comments and in the meeting. No one in the academic world wants to calculate PTE, and we all know what the inherent limitations are for academic R&D. Larry Gibbs makes a good argument in that their emissions estimates (which are based on a conservative 8 hour operation) are still low.
- Presence of pilot plants in the academic setting.
- Control devices and efficiencies
The type of information requests are covered in the questionaire, which was e-mailed to you as an attachment. The decision was not made to go with the questionaire. Stakeholders did not agree with EPA on the information needs at this point. Instead, a smaller working group of stakeholders, light heartedly referred to as the "Wise Persons Council", will be formed to sort out the information needs and will represent all major sectors:
- Academic
- Pharmaceutical
- Electronics
- Government
- Chemical
- Petroleum
- Food processing
- Biotechnology
- Metals
- Medical
- EPA staff
The makeup of the Council will be finalized in a conference call the first week of December and will have the following charge:
- Define what is meant by R&D. What is the universe of R&D operations? Define categories and subcategories as necessary.
- Define categories of information needed to make an informed decision on listing. Review comments submitted to EPA on the questionaire. Determine what is really pertinent to making a listing decision.
- Review existing available data (including data known but not already submitted) and make a decision as to what information is needed. Share the information with stakeholders. Put the emissions data in a table if possible, acknowledging the differences in estimate methods.
- Include work practice standards as potential control measures, although industry maintained that they are much more subjective to enforce than numerical standards.
- Use lessons from previous MACT standards in decision making and look at other relevant standards for direction.
Council to convene and complete this process by early March.
Copyright © 2002-2005 The Campus Consortium for Environmental Excellence | contact_webmaster@c2e2.org