Jump to main content.

Project XL Logo

3M: Hutchinson, Minnesota

3M - Meeting Package

Sampler Package for July 16 EPA 3M Team Meeting
This package contains:


Policy-Side Agenda for July 16 EPA 3M Team Meeting

1. Superior environmental -performance as a condition of the permit. Consequences for violation?

2. Measurement of superior environmental performance (actuals to actuals test). Protocols for determining what actuals would have been under otherwise applicable rules

3. Cross-source bubbling within the site

4. Absolute permit limits
PSD modeling demonstration

5. Absolute permit limits if the actuals to actuals test is not strong

6. HAP trading

7. CAA Title V

8. Environmental Management System
EPA's role in creation of the EMS
Monitoring and record keeping to determine actual emissions
Other monitoring record keeping and reporting

9. Other RCRA and EPCRA issues

10. Unilateral Withdrawal

11. NRDC Comments

Issue Paper for July 16 EPA 3M Team Meeting

Superior environmental, performance. EPA believes that achieving superior environmental performance should be a condition of the MinnesotaXL permit. By superior environmental performance we mean in this case lower emissions of criteria and hazardous air pollutants on a site-wide basis and throughout the term of the project than would have occurred under otherwise applicable rules and. without XL. (NOTE: This is not the same as saying that emissions must be lower than they are today. With rising production, actual emissions without XL would rise, with falling production they would fall relative to today.)
_ How much lower?
_ Complete site-wide averaging (more below)
_ Consequences of violating this condition of the permit

Measurement of superior environmental performance. To verify superior environmental performance, EPA believes that 3M and MPCA should periodically complete a regulatory analysis report that compares actual site-wide emissions against what actual site-wide emissions would have been under otherwise applicable rules, an actuals to actuals test. The results of this analysis should be made available for public comment and review.
_ How often should this analysis be conducted? (annually, every 3 years, on some trigger)
_ How should emissions be averaged over time? (every calendar year, 365 day running average)
_ Measurement of actual emissions (more below)

Protocols for determining what actuals would have been under otherwise applicable rules.
Superior performance should not be achieved by using voluntary controls that existed before XL to offset reduced control in other areas. As such, we should assume that, absent XL, the plant would have continued to operate voluntary emissions control devices (not required by any local state or federal law).
_ What date defines 'pre-existing'? (June 30, 1996; Nov. 3, 1996; issuance of permit, some other date)

The collateral impacts of otherwise applicable rules should be considered. Emissions and emission reductions that would have occurred absent XL should include those of any criteria or hazardous air pollutant, not simply the pollutant that the otherwise applicable requirement was intended to address.

Otherwise applicable rules should include all federal, state and local rules affecting the facility, including new rules that have come into force since the issuance of the permit/FPA.

Production should not be an offset to emissions. We should assume that whatever production did occur would have occurred absent XL.

One complex aspect of determining what actuals would have been absent XL is figuring out what the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program would have done. EPA suggests the following protocols. We should assume that PSD would have been triggered (applicability requirement) by any physical modification on to the facility, except those that would qualify under the synthetic minor exemption. (NOTE: This is a much tougher test than would really apply. That is, far more items could trigger applicability than would really have absent XL). If PSD review would have been triggered under these assumptions, MPCA should assume that the unit would have been required to have BACT as defined in the Clean Air Act and normally implemented by MPCA.
_ Are these the conditions we want? Would we prefer different applicability criteria?


Cross-source bubbling within the site. EPA believes that, in comparing actuals to actuals, (or for that matter, in comparing actuals to the proposed absolute limits discussed below) the facility should have the ability to bubble emissions from all individual sources at the site.
_ For criteria pollutants, this includes sources that would otherwise have been covered by different NSPS categories, by BACT, and sources not covered under either program.
_ For HAPS, this includes sources that would otherwise have been covered by different MACT standards and sources that would not have been covered by MACT.

Treatment of controls that would be required under RCRA parts AA, BB and CC is another issue (discussed in some detail in the attached memo from Michelle Aston of OAQPS). To sum, EPA believes that many of the RCRA required controls could be included in the bubbling concept applicable to Clean Air Act rules (although this inclusion does point to the need to address HAP trading as discussed below).
_ Should we require in any event air-tight covers on tanks and containers used to treat and store RCRA hazardous waste?
_ Should we stipulate that no hazardous waste surface impoundment be operated at the facility under this agreement?
_ What about the hourly emissions limits imposed under part AA? Should we insist that this be incorporate into the acute risk management portion of the EHS?
_ Should we require a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program for certain equipment (pumps, compressors, fittings, valves, open lines, sample ports) used for hazardous waste management? (Perhaps an alternative common sense version that ensures that emission factors remain valid. This could be integrated into the facility-wide EMS. Should we give them credit for actions that reduce leakage below emissions factors?

Protective permit limits. The criteria and HAP limits proposed in the draft permit/FPA represent an improvement from the status quo in that they offer absolute ceilings on site-wide emissions for each pollutant. Given the presence of a strong actuals to actuals test as discussed above, EPA need not rely too heavily on the particular numbers used in the limits. (NOTE: in the event that the actuals to actuals test is not strong, we have a different story, as discussed below). This is particularly true of the proposed HAP limit.

However, EPA needs to be able to say that emissions at the proposed criteria pollutant limits will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. MPCA has submitted a demonstration to this effect, but that demonstration differs in some respects from an assessment that would be acceptable to the Agency in other contexts, such as under the PSD program. MPCA has agreed generally to rectify these differences. (NOTE: I believe that both OAR and OPPE hope that Region 5 can settle this issue with MPCA outside of these discussions).

With respect to the HAP limit. It is difficult for EPA to make a statement about it one way or the other. Our own analysis might suggest that given existing or reasonably anticipated plant configurations and HAP constituents, that the proposed limit is extremely protective (<10-7). But whether this will be the case as 3M makes changes to the plant, we cannot say. Moreover, the statute does not provide the kind of bright line for HAPS that the NAAQS provide for criteria pollutants. At such we must rely on the actuals to actuals technology based comparison as a measure of protectiveness. (NOTE: in the event that the actuals to actuals test is not strong, we have a different story, as discussed below).

Protective permit limits if the actuals to actuals test is not strong. One possibility is that 3M/MPCA will insist that the actuals to actuals test not be included as a condition of the permit. I believe that EPA should push hard on this point. But we should be ready with an acceptable alternative that relies more on the overall cap, perhaps as follows. limits for criteria pollutants set at current actuals (last 5 years).
_ Modifications that would result in increases above current actuals must go through BACT review by MPCA.. (The WeyCo-Flint River solution).
_ How would we set HAP caps? Perhaps cap at current actuals with a 112(g) type review of actions that would take them above current actuals.

HAP trading.

Clean Air-Act Title V. EPA believes that the provisions of the permit can meet the substantive statutory requirements of Title V under certain conditions. We believe these conditions are also appropriate whether or not they would be required under Title V.

_ Public notice and opportunity to comment on any amendment to the permit
_ Public notice and opportunity to comment on actuals to actuals analyses.
_ Inspection, entrance and compliance certification, consistent with EPA's Audit Policy.
_ A permit reissuance at the 5 year mark, with notice and comment. Should we somehow articulate our expectation that if the permit terms are complied with, EPA would anticipate speedy renewal.
_ Incorporation of monitoring requirements in the EMS (see below).

EMS. Many of the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting provisions of the agreement, as well as the acute risk prevention items, will be included in the 3M-Hutchinson Environmental Management System. EPA supports the notion contained in draft permit/FPA that compliance with the terms of the EMS is a condition of the permit.

EPA believes, for legal as well as policy reasons, that it should have the ability to review and concur with provisions of the EMS. We understand that this means that EPA will have to assist, MPCA and 3M in further development of the EMS (not just late hit).

EPA understands that the system used in the draft permit/FPA for calculating air emissions from the plant is the one that 3M intends to use in the EMS, with modifications as the plant is modified.
_ Is this system adequate to determine plant-wide emissions (NOTE: My hope is that Region 5 and MPCA can deal with this issue outside of this meeting)
_ This system should include whatever information MPCA would need to determine what would have been required under otherwise applicable rules (e.g. shutdown, new equipment startup dates etc.)

EPA understands that the EMS will be the focus of 3M's record keeping and reporting.
_ What kind of daily record keeping should we require?
_ What about record keeping required under non-air emissions provisions of RCRA, EPCRA, CWA?

Other RCRA and EPCRA Issues. EPA believes that the 24 hour notification of emergency spills and releases is not acceptable, notification must be immediate per otherwise applicable requirements. EPA believes that extension to 18 days of the storage standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste must be only applied to on site generated waste and materials.

Unilateral Withdrawal.


July 12, 1996

NOTE TO: Jon Kessler, OPPE
FROM: Michele Aston, ESD

RCRA Section 3004(n,) requires EPA to promulgate standards to protect human health and the environment from hazardous waste emission points including, but not limited to, open tanks, surface impoundments, and landfills. To fulfill this requirement, EPA has promulgated the RCRA subpart AA, BB, and CC organic air emission standards. These are health-based standards, the basis for which were detailed risk analyses. Subparts AA and BB were promulgated in 1990 and are already effective; subpart CC was promulgated in 1994 and is currently under litigation. In part to settle the litigation, the Agency is developing amendments to the final subpart CC rules; the final rule, as amended, will be effective in October 1996.

Regarding the 3M Proposal to implement a site-specific air emission reduction program in lieu of complying with the specific air emission controls requirements of the RCRA subparts, AA, BB, and CC standards, OGC has advised us that the approach is legally defensible, albeit highly risky. Aside from the legal defensibility of the 3M project, the EPA should give strong consideration to the position of the on-going subpart CC litigation, which could be damaged by the very arguments that might be used to defend the 3M site-specific standard.

I have developed the following suggestions for the 3M project in an effort to consider project XL flexibility for all three RCRA air standards, while maintaining protection of EPA's position for the subpart CC litigation. There are other RCRA issues contained in the 3M proposal (e.g. generator accumulation time and biennial reporting) that indirectly affect the RCRA air standards, but they are more within the purview of OSWER and should be addressed by that Office.


To make a strong argument that a facility-wide cap is sufficient to satisfy the health-based requirements of the RCRA statute, we should be able to demonstrate that no increased risk is being posed by swapping emissions around the facility. Such a demonstration could be made by conducting a site-specific risk analysis, or we could structure the cap so that the same amount of each high risk pollutant must be controlled as would be controlled under the promulgated RCRA air rules. Equivalent levels of protection aren't guaranteed if we consider the control of one HAP to be equivalent to the control of any other HAP; that would potentially allow the facility to off-set 10 pounds of benzene emissions by controlling 10 points of methane emissions. This issue may already have been addressed for the 3M project; however, I want to be sure that the project team realizes that it's an important consideration for including the RCRA regulations in the facility-wide cap approach.


Subpart CC requires air-tight covers on tanks, surface impoundments, and containers used to store RCRA hazardous waste, and additional air emission control devices for those units used to vigorously treat hazardous waste.

Storage tanks and containers under subpart CC: For tanks and containers used to store hazardous waste, we could allow some flexibility in certain areas, but I strongly suggest that we stipulate that each hazardous waste tank and container be fitted with an air-tight cover. One summary of the 3M proposal mentioned that 3M has hazardous waste tanks located in a building; as long as there are covers on the tanks or air emission controls on the building, we could defend the 3M agreement without endangering the CC litigation. Fixed covers are a cost-effective air pollution control device, and also serve to prevent rain water from increasing the volume of hazardous waste. For this reason, I think it's unlikely that 3M would object to our specifying these units should, at a minimum, be equipped with covers.

Treatment tanks and containers under subpart CC: For tanks and containers used to treat hazardous waste, we could allow flexibility in the control devise requirements, but should not allow uncovered units to treat hazardous waste. The final subpart CC standards require treatment tanks to be equipped with a fixed cover, and all emissions to be routed through a closed-vent system to an organic emission control device that achieves a 95% reduction of the organics in vapor stream. I don't know whether any hazardous waste treatment units are operated at 3M and, if so, whether operating air emission controls would be difficult. Therefore, I don't know whether the facility would object to such a stipulation.

Surface Impoundments under subpart CC: The 3M proposal does not mention any hazardous waste surface impoundments operated at the facility, and we should include a stipulation that none be operated in the future. Hazardous waste impoundments carry many financial and legal risks, so it seems unlikely that 3M would object to this stipulation.


Subpart AA requires that total emissions from process vents on affected units (steam strippers, distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, and air strippers) be below 3 lb/hr and 3.1 ton/yr, or be reduced by 95% from baseline levels. We could allow an alternative air emission control program, provided the emission points that would be affected by subpart AA are evaluated and off-set through that program. Also condition should be included in the 3M rulemaking that guarantees any increased process vent emissions resulting from future facility modifications will be evaluated and off-set at the time of the modification.


Subpart BB requires a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program for certain equipment (pumps, compressors, fittings, valves, open lines, sample ports) used for hazardous waste management. As with subpart AA, we could allow an alternative air emission control program that off-sets emission reductions that would be achieved by subpart BB. The 3M rulemaking should require the facility to evaluate the emissions points subject to subpart BB, and off-set any emission reduction that would be achieved by complying with subpart BB. To do so, 3M may use an approach that includes calculating the emissions from subpart BB emission points using emission rate factors that are specific to the equipment being evaluated. Since these factors are developed based on the current integrity of the affected equipment, we should require the facility to develop and implement a maintenance program for that equipment. This would help to preserve the current integrity of the equipment, and thus ensure that the emission factors used in the calculations remain valid. This program need not be as specific as other promulgated LDAR programs, but rather could use an effective common-sense approach designed by the facility. The important thing here is that the equipment not be ignored and allowed to deteriorate.

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.