EPA WATCH
Interim policy issued on major source definition Ttoo 1995 court decisions are forcing EPA to revise Clean Air Act rules that establish EPA's role in determining whether a facility is a major source and subject to stringent regulations, said John Seitz, director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), in a Jan. 22 memorandum announcing an interim policy. At issue is whether EPA, in designating a facility as a major source based on its "potential to emit," must include state-adopted controls, said an industry lawyer. EPA uses actual emissions and the potential to emit to designate major sources. A state can require a plant to add controls to reduce its potential emissions, but EPA determines whether these controls are adequate. In one case, the court required EPA to explain why it alone can assess a control's effectiveness. In a second case, the court nullified EPA's requirement that it assess the effectiveness of major new sources' controls. In the interim policy memo, Seitz amended EPA's definition of potential to emit to include state-adopted measures. Mary Nichols and Steve Herman, assistant administrators for air and radiation and enforcement, respectively, published a document Jan. 31 for an advisory subcommittee detailing its options for a final policy. According to OAQPS's Tim Smith, the options are either recognizing state-issued controls or reducing administrative requirements while maintaining EPA definitions. EPA will propose amended rules that deal with EPA definitions of potential to emit this spring and hopes to have final rules completed next year, Smith said. If EPA must accept state-adopted controls, sources designated as major might avoid CAA regulation, said Susan Connela, legal counsel for the Chemical Manufacturers Association. As a result, she said that any sources that were "on the cusp" of
the Clean Air Act emission limits could be given designations that have less-stringent requirements than major sources. However, Smith said few facilities will change designation should EPA accept stateissued controls. Major sources emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons/year of one hazardous air pollutant (HAP), 25 tons/year or more of all HAPs, or 100 tons/year of a criteria pollutant such as sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide. The potential to emit is determined by the substances a facility has on site and how it controls them.
Second HWIR rule eases requirements on media Parties responsible for soil and groundwater contaminated with low concentrations of hazardous compounds may avoid strict handling requirements under a proposed hazardous waste identification rule (HWIR) issued in March, according to an Office of Solid Waste (OSW) official. The proposed rule would establish a baseline concentration level that triggers Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C provisions. The HWIR for contaminated media would give EPA or the state, whichever exercises oversight, authority to reduce handling requirements for low-concentration contaminated media, said OSW's Carolyn Hoskinson. Currently, contaminated media are subject to Subtitle C, which requires permits for treatment and stringent handling and disposal requirements for excavation, transport, and disposal. The rule sets a concentration ceiling, or "bright line," that varies by constituent and medium, Hoskinson said. If the concentration is above the line, the medium is subject to Subtitle C requirements. The agency exercising oversight would set a sitespecific plan for media with concentrations below the ceiling. Although the parties responsible for groundwater and soil pollution
0013-936X/96/0930-H9A$12.00/0 © 1996 American Chemical Society
applaud the proposed rule, they would prefer that the rule call for site-specific management plans across the board rather than Subtitle C requirements that may be waived if the site is under the contamination level, said Karl Bourdeau, an industry attorney. Contaminated media generally involves large volumes of soil and sediments treated or transported for disposal and groundwater pumped for treatment, so that reducing those quantities will yield significant savings, Hoskinson said. The estimated annual savings ranges between $500 million and $1.2 billion, according to OSW's Lyn Luben. There will be a 90-day comment period, and EPA hopes to have the final rule issued by summer of 1997.
Office of Water introduces effluent trading program Effluent trading among industries that discharge pollutants into the same watershed is being promoted through an Office of Water voluntary trading policy [Federal Register 1996, 61 (28), 4994-96]. Assistant Administrator for Water Robert Perciasepe announced the agency's effluent trading policy Jan. 25, claiming it will allow states to develop programs that will help achieve Clean Water Act (CWA) water quality goals through economic incentives. The policy will be implemented through the CWA permitting program, which is run primarily by states, according to Mahesh Podar, director of budget and policy for the Office of Water. Trading will remain in accordance with existing clean water regulations. The policy allows companies capable of making large reductions to sell effluent credits to companies that would have greater difficulty in achieving prescribed levels, Podar said. Polluting industries can collectively devise a plan to achieve reductions to stay under current total maximum daily loadings (e.g., a daily contaminant dumping level that EPA determines a
VOL. 30, NO. 4, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 4 9 A
