Date: September 9, 1996
To: EPA and CAM Public Hearing Attendees
From: Kevin Bromberg
Assistant Chief Counsel for Environmental Policy
US Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy
Subject: Regulatory Alternatives for Consideration by EPA in the CAM Rulemaking
While the CAM rule has been well tailored to limit small business burdens, and still provide reasonable assurance of compliance, SBA suggests that EPA consider the following alternatives to further lessen that burden. We ask that the attendees at the September 10 public hearing address these alternatives at the hearing, and in written comments later to EPA. If you would like to discuss this further, you may contact me at 202-205-6964 (phone), 205-6928 (fax). Please also send a copy to me at: Office of Advocacy, US Small Business Administration, 409 3rd St., S.W., Washington, DC 20416.
I. Exempt Units With Actual Emissions of Under 50% Major Source Thresholds.
For sources whose actual emissions are less than 50% of major source thresholds, EPA currently allows those sources to escape "major source" designations, at least temporarily, by retaining operating records adequate to demonstrate this status. We recommend retaining this exemption in the final CAM rule, pending further developments in Title V rulemakings and other state/industry efforts to develop other regulatory schemes to avoid "major source" designations for such sources. EPA already proposes a permanent exemption for municipal utilities whose three year average is less than 50% of major source thresholds. This alternative has the advantage of eliminating possibly thousands of sources that need not be in the CAM program because the "reasonable assurance" can be obtained through the facilities' own records. This saves the considerable resources of the facilities and the permit writers in reviewing/approving CAM plans, even of this minimal nature.
II. Exempt Units with Actual Emissions of 50%-90% Major Source Thresholds with State Approval of Recordkeeping.
For sources whose actual emissions, over some period of time, are between 50-90% of major source thresholds, the states may approve the source's proposed emissions estimate methodology and recordkeeping as a condition of being exempt from regulation under CAM. In this manner, the state would conserve its resources in applying the CAM rule and its associated requirements. This exemption could be granted permanently by the state, to avoid review of this requirement during the next permit term.
III. In Determining Subpart B Applicability, Assume the Control Device Operates at 50% of Its Rated Efficiency In Determining Major Source Status
In determining potential to emit for sources with active control devices under Subpart B, EPA has chosen to exclude entirely the efficiency of all active control device. Presumably, EPA intends for the CAM rule to capture units that exceed major source thresholds because they may not be operating at the prescribed operating efficiency. (EPA has chosen the major source threshold to be the dividing line between the less and more significant sources in the context of Subpart B.)
However, there is an alternative between ascribing no benefit to the pollution control device, and assuming it is operated properly. Thus, SBA suggests that subpart B address units which would become major sources if the device operated at one half its lowest normal operating efficiency (or a default value of 40%, if this figure cannot be reasonably established). In this manner, thousands of units may be exempt that would not reasonably ever become major sources in reality.
This should make the more costly Subpart B provisions applicable only when a source may reasonably become a "true" major source, unless the source operates without the control device. Sources operating without control devices at all would not need the CAM rule, because they would be clearly in violation of the underlying standards. "True" major sources operating with control devices would not escape the CAM rule, because they could not reasonably operate at 50% of the lowest normal efficiency.
IV. Less Detailed QIP requirements
In several provisions, the QIP requirements are quite detailed as to how the QIP is implemented, specific measures, time frames, approvals, etc. These detailed requirements deny the permit authorities and the affected facilities of the flexibility to achieve the same or similar results in a more cost-effective manner. Guidelines would be much more appropriate. Further, in other similar settings, water and air permit authorities exercise much greater enforcement discretion.