Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

Response to Comments

7/15/96

The following is an initial response to the comments submitted by EPA on the 3M Hutchinson XL pilot. The attached responses are DRAFT and intended only as discussion points at an upcoming face-to-face meeting between EPA, MPCA, and 3M.
Comments Section 1 - Labeled "Preamble"

MPCA Response:

EPA comments in the opening paragraph of the permit suggest the MPCA change the term tape and coating to tape coating. MPCA staff understand EPA requested this change to limit the type of modifications allowed under the 3M Hutchinson MinnesotaXL permit (hereinafter referred to as XL permit). MPCA concurs the range of modifications or changes allowed at the 3M Hutchinson facility should be limited to operations similar to the way 3M Hutchinson currently operates. The MPCA believes the proposed change would unnecessarily restrict operations and that the language "tape and coating", in conjunction with tape and coating type NSPS variances listed in Section II.A.4, sufficiently limit types of modifications allowed. Although 3M currently only performs tape coating operations at this facility, it is possible that they may perform coating of other types of materials other than tape. An example of other materials 3M may coat are plastic parts and flexible vinyl. Since the operation and resulting emissions are basically the same whether the company is coating tape or some other material, this permit allows them to also coat other materials and all appropriate rules that need to be varied are cited in the permit. Therefore, the MPCA is proposing no changes as a result of this comment.

Comment Section 2 - Labeled "Emission Caps"

MPCA Response to paragraph 1:

EPA comments requested no specific change in this paragraph. However, the MPCA agrees the 3M Hutchinson facility is not permitted to emit above levels set by the criteria and HAP pollutants caps.

Secondly, the MPCA acknowledges that EPA does not endorse or otherwise concur with the air toxics analysis in the proposed XL permit for the 3M Hutchinson facility. Furthermore, MPCA acknowledges that EPA is in an ongoing process to refine its risk assessment process in response to the National Academy of Sciences' review of those methods as required by the CAAA of 1990. In the meantime, the MPCA conducted an air toxic analysis of the 3M Hutchinson facility that follows procedures used to review air emissions of other Minnesota facilities for their the potential health impacts and, procedures which, in general, incorporate current EPA risk assessment guidelines. The analysis uses EPA's IRIS and HEAST data for chronic exposure to carcinogens and non-carcinogens. In addition, it includes an analysis of additive effects for potential exposure to mixtures of chemicals. The additive limits for carcinogens and non-carcinogens have been proposed in the permit to protect the publics' health from potential risk due to chronic inhalation exposure to air emissions in this facility.

In addition to the chronic exposure analysis, some of the chemicals emitted at 3M Hutchinson are also of concern from an acute inhalation exposure. Approximately 88% of the current HAP emissions are attributed to air pollutants having the potential to cause acute health impacts. The analysis was conducted using draft acute guideline numbers developed by the Minnesota Department of Health. An analysis of "worst reasonable case" emissions overestimated the 1-hour impacts when compared to actual emissions of 1994 and 1995. The analysis then incorporated a state-of-the-art approach, stochastic-dispersion model. 3M will use the results of this analysis to identify production scenario(s) and operational procedures necessary to prevent possible 1-hour exceedences. It should be noted that the analysis for acute health impacts also accounts for additive impacts from chemicals having the same toxicological endpoint.

In conclusion, the MPCA believes, compared to MACT standards, the above described air toxics analysis along with the HAP cap provide superior protection of human health and the environment. Finally, it is important to note, the CAA will require a residual risk analysis to calculate the risk remaining to public health from sources subject to MACT. This analysis will take place in approximately eight years whereas the MPCA risk analysis provides protection of human health now.

DRAFT
7/15/96
Comment Section 2 - Labeled "Emission Caps"

MPCA Response to paragraph 2:

EPA comments in this section they understand significant modifications to existing boilers will subject to a permit modification. The MPCA was surprised at this comment, because with MPCA staff attending the June meeting in Chicago had a different understanding of this discussion and what was agreed. MPCA staff understood that the concept of no netting out of PSD on boiler modifications would be incorporated into the regulatory analysis and not at the point of a modification to the boiler and that the language would be added to the agreement. The MPCA will bring this up as a discussion topic at the upcoming meeting.

Comment Section 2 - Labeled "Emission Caps"

MPCA Response to paragraph 3:

EPA comments in this paragraph refer to criteria pollutant modeling analysis conducted by the MPCA to determine if the emission caps would result in continued compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Project XL criteria do not require the MPCA to perform dispersion modeling, and the level of analysis EPA has asked for is not appropriate for this type of review. The MPCA believes the modeling assumptions to be generally conservative and that further refinement would be wasted resources with a similar outcome. Therefore, the MPCA does not intend to further refine the modeling analysis.

Comment Section 2 - Labeled "Emission Caps"

MPCA Response to paragraph 4:

EPA comments in this paragraph refer to the 3000 ton total HAP, VOC, and other criteria pollutant caps and the type and frequency of regulatory analysis to be performed. The MPCA, at the three points during the term of the permit, intends to conduct a regulatory analysis. A description of the regulatory analysis and how it will be conducted is contained in section IV.B. of the XL permit. Furthermore, as stated the MPCA will use the analysis to determine if an adjustment to the emission cap(s) are needed. Lastly, EPA requested the analysis include a comparison of actual emissions to actual emissions that would have occurred under existing regulations. The provision currently states the MPCA will compare actual emissions to emissions "allowed under existing regulations." The MPCA is open to discussing this request. But in general the MPCA believes that in some circumstances this requirement could limit innovation in reducing emissions through source reduction. Refer to attached examples provided by 3M. Therefore, if this "actuals to actuals" provision is added into the regulatory analysis, it would only be one of many criteria used to judge the success of the pilot.

Comment Section 3 - Labeled "Prospective Standards"

EPA comments in this paragraph refer to insuring that promulgated standards be included in the regulatory analysis. The MPCA intends to do this at the regulatory analysis checkpoints and believe section IV.B. of the XL permit adequately addresses this comment.

Comment Section 4 - Labeled "Superior Performance"

EPA comments in this paragraph refer to ensuring that superior environmental performance is achieved. The Minnesota legislation requires superior environmental performance to be achieved and the MPCA intends to use environmental performance as an indicator of success in determining whether or not to continue the pilot project. However, the MPCA does not intend to require a superior environmental

DRAFT
7/15/96

performance for each pollutant, nor does the MPCA intend to require that 3M meet a minimum percentage below what the CAA would require. Minnesota legislation requires overall superior environmental performance, and this is the criteria which the permit meets. The MPCA believes that there could be situations in which all permit conditions are met, but the facility does not meet a 10% threshold for a pollutant. The overall facility performance may be simply in compliance with applicable requirements. Therefore, the MPCA intends to look at the overall environmental performance in order to take the appropriate action. Furthermore, the MPCA has agreed to place a condition in the Final Project Agreement to allow parties to unilaterally withdraw under a prescribed set of conditions, one of which includes the failure to achieve overall superior environmental performance (not for each pollutant as indicated by EPA comments). Therefore, the MPCA is proposing not to change the permit as a result of comments in this section.

Comment Section 5 - Labeled "Bench Marking"

MPCA Response to paragraph 1:

In this paragraph, the EPA suggests the regulatory analysis be conducted annually. The permittee is currently required to report actual emissions to determine daily compliance with the criteria pollutant and HAP limits. The MPCA believes the criteria pollutant and HAP limits are protective of human health and the environment. Conducting the regulatory analysis will be a tremendous administrative burden with no associated environmental gain, which is contrary to the spirit of Project XL. Therefore, the MPCA is not proposing changes to the frequency at which the regulatory analysis is conducted.

Secondly, the EPA requests inclusion of two criteria when conducting a regulatory analysis. The MPCA has discussed the first criteria of comparing actual emissions to what actual emissions would have occurred outside the Project XL without "technology backsliding." The MPCA does not understand the intent of the second comment or how the comparison would be conducted. Follow-up conversations with EPA staff indicate the information already being accumulated for the regulatory analysis may be used to draw conclusions in this area if needed. Therefore, the MPCA is not proposing changes as a result of the second criteria.

Comment Section 5 - Labeled "Bench Marking"

MPCA Response to paragraph 2:

In this paragraph, the EPA suggests the regulatory analysis consider factors such as production levels and coating usage in determining whether superior environmental performance has been achieved. MPCA staff agree and will include various factors, like production levels, in the technical support document description of how the regulatory analysis is expected to be conducted.

Comment Section 5 - Labeled "Bench Marking"

MPCA Response to paragraph 3:

In the paragraph, the EPA outlines a protocol for conducting a regulatory analysis. MPCA staff generally agree with the suggested protocol and will work with 3M and EPA to develop an appropriate protocol to be included in the technical support document. We have the following responses to the specific suggestions on the protocol:

When calculating what the actual emissions would have been under otherwise applicable requirements, the MPCA agrees that we should assume that the plant continues to operate voluntary control emission
DRAFT
7/15/96

devices, procedures or other actions not required by any otherwise applicable local, state or federal requirement, but only for the control devices, procedures or other actions that were existing at the time of permit issuance. For voluntary control devices, procedures or other actions that 3M undertakes after permit issuance, they will only be considered in the actual emission calculation that reflects operation under the XL permit.

The MPCA agrees that if 3M undertakes an activity to reduce a pollutant to which an otherwise applicable requirement would apply, any emission changes that occur for pollutants other than the pollutant limited by the applicable requirement should be considered in the regulatory analysis.

The MPCA agrees with he third starred item.

The MPCA agrees that emission controls that were not implemented but would have been implemented under otherwise applicable requirements need to be considered in the regulatory analysis when calculating what the actual emission would have been under otherwise applicable requirements. The MPCA believes the regulatory analysis should assume that the controls will operate at typical efficiencies unless we have technical information that would lead us to assume a different control efficiency. What is typical will be determined by the MPCA and 3M using best engineering judgement.

The MPCA agrees with the fifth, sixth and seventh starred items.

Comment Section 5 - Labeled "Bench Marking"

MPCA Response to paragraph 4:

In this paragraph, the EPA discusses how a regulatory analysis would consider applicable requirements under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The MPCA and 3M will determine if PSD would've applied to a modification based on the increase in actual emissions due to the modification, not based on potential to emit as EPA suggests. MPCA is proposing no permit change as a result of this comment.

Comment Section 5 - Labeled "Bench Marking"

MCPA Response to paragraph 5:

In this paragraph, the EPA requests record be kept by the permittee to assist in conducting the regulatory analysis. The MPCA agrees and has proposed to add the following provision to section IV.B. of the XL permit:

B. Air Quality Regulatory Limitation Analysis. The permittee and the
MPCA shall complete an air quality regulatory analysis report to compare the
pollutant limits in section II.A.1, Tables 1 and 3 to state and federal regulatory
requirements at the time of the analysis. The regulatory analysis report shall be
completed on each of the following dates: November 1, 1998; November 1, 2001
and November 1, 2005. The regulatory analysis shall establish what the actual
emissions of each pollutant would be on a facility-wide basis under state and
federal regulations at the time of the analysis. The regulatory analysis shall be
performed for each unit for major emissions units, but units may be grouped for
smaller emission units (e.g., tanks and mixers). The permittee shall maintain
records necessary to conduct the regulatory analysis. At the time each of these
analyses are completed, the MPCA will decide whether it needs to amend this

DRAFT
7/15/96

permit to keep the pollutant limits at or below state and federal regulatory
requirements.

Comment Section 5 - Labeled "Bench Marking"

MPCA Response to paragraph 6:

EPA comments in this paragraph again refer to insuring that superior environmental performance is achieved. The MPCA believes this issue to already be addressed under the MPCA response to comments in section 4 above.

Comment Section 5 - Labeled "Bench Marking"

MPCA Response to paragraph 7:

EPA comments in this paragraph again refer to insuring that superior environmental performance is achieved compared to other requirements under state and federal regulations. The MPCA believes this issue to already be addressed under the MPCA response to comments in section 3 above. In addition, EPA comments that depending on the outcome of the regulatory analysis the HAP cap may need to be adjusted. MPCA staff concur, and believe the last sentence of the regulatory analysis addresses this concern. The sentence states:

"At the time of each of these analyses are completed, the MPCA will decide whether
it needs to amend this permit to keep the pollutant limits at or below state and federal
regulatory requirements."

Comment Section 5 - Labeled "Bench Marking"

MPCA Response to paragraph 8:

In this paragraph EPA comments that depending on the outcome of the regulatory analysis the criteria pollutant caps may need to be adjusted. Again, MPCA staff concur, and believe the last sentence of the regulatory analysis addresses this concern.

Comment Section 5 - Labeled "Bench Marking"

MPCA Response to paragraph 9:

EPA requests in the last paragraph of section 5 that MPCA should make clear the consequences of violating emission caps. The emission caps are a requirement of the XL permit. The XL permit is will be a fully enforceable permit under Minnesota law. As such the MPCA has all enforcement tools available in the event of a violation. As with other permits the MPCA would evaluate the facts and take appropriate action.

Secondly, the EPA requests it be made clear that a violation of the caps should result in unilateral termination. The MPCA believes this issue will be addressed through stated conditions of a unilateral withdrawal under section 11, below.

DRAFT
7/15/96

Comment Section 6 - Labeled "Title V"

In this section EPA comments that the XL permit must be substantively equivalent to Title V in order to not conflict with the CAA requirements. EPA listed four areas in which the XL permit may conflict.

The first potential conflict pointed out by EPA is that the CAA requires a five year permit term where the XL permit currently has a ten year permit term. The MPCA concurs that this is a conflict and has addressed the issued through the following proposed permit language in Section IV.G. [new]

Automatic reissuance process at the five year mark. The permit
shall be deemed automatically reissued at the five year mark unless request to
reopen and reissue the permit is received with a substantiated claim the
permittee is not achieving superior environmental performance.

As part of this reissuance the MPCA is proposing to move up the second regulatory analysis one year from November 1, 2001 to November 1, 2000. The results of the second analysis will then be public noticed for 30 days for review and comment. The MPCA believes this will give the public an opportunity to comment on whether superior environmental performance is being achieved. With the addition of these provisions the MPCA believes the XL permit requirements are substantially equivalent to the Title V five year permit term requirement.

The second potential conflict pointed out by EPA concerns public participation. MPCA believes that during the issuance process public participation requirements were met or exceeded. A detailed discussion of public participation is discussed in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Order. Concerning reissuance and modifications to the permit, Minnesota legislation requires at a minimum a 30 day public comment period and a mailing to interested parties. Therefore, the MPCA believes the requirements in the XL permit are substantively equivalent to Title V public participation requirements.

The third conflict pointed out by EPA concerns adequate records, monitoring and reporting as required by otherwise applicable requirements. The MPCA believes the XL permit requirements and changes as a result of prior EPA comments are substantively equivalent to Title V requirements. Furthermore, the MPCA believes that the streamlining of requirements in this area is a main objective of Project XL in reducing administrative burdens. Therefore, the MPCA only required records, monitoring and reporting provisions necessary to insure compliance.

The fourth conflict pointed out by EPA concerns Title V inspection, entry, and compliance certification requirements. The MPCA believes the general conditions located in Section V.7. are substantively equivalent to Title V inspection and entry requirements. The MPCA believes that the EMS requirement, specifically Section III.A.2.d., is substantively equivalent to Title V certification requirements. Furthermore, EPA will have an opportunity to insure certification requirements are substantively equivalent to Title V through approval of specific EMS segments as outlined in the next MPCA response.

Comment Section 7 - Labeled "EMS"

In this section EPA comments that portions of the EMS designed to ensure compliance must be approved by the MCPA and EPA. The MCPA concurs and agrees to submit the portions designed to ensure compliance with items listed in section III.B and the XL permit with EPA. The MPCA believes that addressing this issue would be handled through a modification to the final project agreement.

DRAFT
7/15/96

The second comment again raises the issue of adequate recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring. The MPCA concurs and believes this issue is covered under the third point of Section 6, above.

Lastly, EPA notes the need for daily records to be included in a quarterly report. The MPCA reluctantly agreed to require this administratively burdensome task through prior meetings. The requirements are included in the compliance requirements of Attachment 2 to the XL permit.

Comment Section 8 - Labeled "EPCRA"

In this section EPA comments that a 24 hour notice currently required in the permit conflicts with an immediate notification requirement in EPCRA. The MPCA concurs and is proposing the following change to Section IV.C.6 of the XL permit.

6. Immediately upon ~~Within 24 hours~~ becoming aware of a
permit, rule or statute violation that may endanger human health, public
drinking water supplies or the environment, the permittee shall notify
the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Duty Officer at 1(800)422-0798 or
(612)649-5451. Within 5 days of this notification, the permittee shall submit
a written report to the MPCA that describes the violation and its duration, and
the steps the permittee will take to prevent a recurrence.

Comment Section 9 - Labeled "RCRA"

EPA comments here that the additional hazardous waste storage time must only be applied to hazardous waste generated on site. The MPCA concurs and is proposing the following change to Section II.B.1. of the XL permit:

1. The permittee shall comply with the requirements of Minn. R.
7045.0205-0305 (standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste),
except that the 90 day accumulation requirement of Minn. R. 7045.0292,
subp. 1(A) is varied to 180 days for hazardous waste generated at the
Hutchinson facility by issuance of this permit. These requirements govern:
proper hazardous waste management; evaluation of wastes; generator
licensing; hazardous waste manifesting; hazardous waste generation and
storage; and reporting and recordkeeping.

Secondly, EPA states that it cannot justify an approach to vary 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC
because it is not yet in effect. MPCA believes this can only be addressed through a EPA site
specific federal rulemaking. Therefore, no changes are proposed to the permit as a result of
this comment.

Comment Section 10 - Labeled "Water"

EPA comments here that it is their understanding that nonstormwater discharges are not allowed by the XL permit. The MPCA agrees.

DRAFT
7/15/96

Comment Section 11 - Labeled "Unilateral Withdrawal"

EPA comments here that the FPA must outline the ability of all parties to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement for any reason. The MPCA generally concurs with this statement. However, the MPCA believes that withdrawal should be conditioned on good faith and limited to specific key conditions. The MPCA is proposing unilateral withdrawal should be based on the finding that one of the following three conditions has occurred:

1) superior environmental performance has not been achieved;
2) the Project XL pilot is more administratively burdensome than the existing regulatory process; or
3) the stakeholder/public participation criteria have not been met.

Therefore, the MPCA will develop language in the FPA based the above response. No change to the permit is proposed as a result of this comment.

Comment Section 12 - Labeled "FPA - Legal and Enforcement"

In the first paragraph, EPA comments state that language describing the Minnesota statute could be construed to indicate that waivers issued would have an effect on Federal requirements. The MPCA is aware that only EPA action such as a site-specific federal rulemaking will impact federal requirements, and the MPCA did not intend to imply otherwise. Therefore, the MPCA will work with the EPA to develop language in the FPA to clarify this issue as needed. No change to the permit is proposed as a result of this comment.

In the second paragraph EPA comments they are still evaluating alternatives for legal mechanisms to implement the XL permit on the federal level. The MPCA did not intend to limit the scope of alternatives available to EPA and therefore will work with the EPA to develop language in the FPA to clarify this issue as needed. No change to the permit is proposed as a result of this comment.

Comment Section 13 - Labeled "Flexibility"

In this paragraph, EPA states that "to the greatest extent possible" the permit/FPA should empower the company with flexibility. Most of the previous comments would result in a decrease in flexibility with little or no additional environmental or human health protection. The MPCA strongly agrees with the comment. The MPCA has and will attempt to maintain the flexibility in the XL permit. No change to the permit is proposed as a result of this comment.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

Local Navigation