 

September 18, 2000

Mr. Michael Trutna

Senior Technical Advisor

Information Transfer and Program Integration Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Re: EPA’s Operating Permits Program, White Paper Number 3, “Design
of Flexible Air Permits”

Dear Mr. Trutna:

The Electronic Industries AlIiance (EIA) greatly appreciates this
opportunity to provide the its comments on EPA’s draft Title V White
Paper Number 3, entitled "Design of Flexible Air Permits."  These
comments were prepared by EIA's Clean Air Working Group ("CAWG"), which
has the active participation of major U.S. electronics manufacturers. 
EIA is the oldest and largest trade association representing the U.S.
electronics industry.  It is comprised of more than 2,100 member
companies that design, manufacture, distribute and sell electronic
parts, components and systems for consumer, commercial, industrial,
military and aerospace use.

	EIA’s CAWG  has been involved in a broad range of implementation and
flexibility issues under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”).  Our focus has
primarily been on ensuring the compatibility of CAA requirements with
the hundreds of routine process upgrades, advancements and innovations
that an electronics or other high technology manufacturer must undertake
each year to control costs, maintain quality, meet corporate pollution
prevention goals, and satisfy new regulatory requirements.  In
particular, regulatory flexibility -- as defined as the ability of our
industry to undertake these routine operational changes without
significant delay -- is critical to the industry’s global
competitiveness.

EIA’s CAWG has been working cooperatively with EPA in various
capacities to explore flexible permitting approaches, including through
the Agency-sponsored Pollution Prevention In Permits (“P4”) Pilot --
which has resulted in the first cap-type permit for an electronics
facility -- as well as by participating Title V operational flexibility
workshops. The draft White Paper goes a long way toward incorporating
the lessons learned in those and other EPA pilot projects into Agency
guidance.

EIA’s CAWG reiterates its support for EPA's publication of this White
Paper. Together with issuing a final New Source Review rule that
includes a workable Plantwide Applicability Limits (PAL) program,
publishing this White Paper will be a significant step toward converting
the lessons learned in many different reinvention pilot projects into
programmatic reality.



Publishing the White Paper also would be an important step in
implementing a commitment articulated in EPA's July 1999 "Aiming for
Excellence" report.  In that report, the Agency pledged to learn from
its various permitting pilots to "…increase permitting flexibility
while providing equal or better levels of environmental and public
health protection, provide incentives for pollution prevention, and
ensure public participation in permitting decisions." 

EIA’s line-specific comments are included as our “Attachment 1.”  
Although they are very similar to Intel’s line-specific comments, they
do vary in some instances.  CAWG’s general comments are as follows:

The white paper is well grounded in practical, real-world examples that
should help permitting authorities and sources follow the EPA's
guidance.  However, additional examples would be helpful.

The White Paper could be strengthened by including an introductory
section that outlines the benefits that flexible permitting approaches
can provide to the environment, stakeholders, and regulators. 
Articulation of these benefits can and should be strengthened in the
body of the paper; however, a summary of these benefits in the
introduction would underscore EPA’s commitment to the flexible
permitting concept.  EIA’s CAWG concurs with the principal benefits of
these permitting approaches, as Intel articulated in its comments.  

EIA’s CAWG appreciates the significant changes EPA has made to section
V.B 

concerning Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs). That section contains
a good discussion of pending Agency decisions regarding New Source
Review reform that may significantly affect how PALs will be treated in
the future.  However, on balance, EIA believes that this section should
be deleted pending issuance of the regulations governing PAL permits. 
EIA members have extensive experience with PAL and Cap permitting and
believe that the policies expressed in the paper are inconsistent with
prior Agency policies and current law.  Moreover, the draft states that
any future PAL rule will ultimately govern these permits in any case so
the effectiveness of the guidance would be short-lived.  We believe that
the guidance will either be too short-lived to be useful or it will
pre-determine the outcome of critical issues in the rulemaking, neither
of which is a workable result.  We understand that EPA intends that the
White Paper not pre-judge these issues but cannot see, as a practical
matter, how that result could be achieved.  Accordingly, we request that
this section of the paper be deleted. 

In summary, EIA supports the provisions contained in the White Paper,
which will go a long way toward making flexible permitting approaches a
reality for electronic manufacturing facilities that need operational
flexibility to meet market demands.  We are happy to provide any
additional input, or answer any further questions, as necessary or
appropriate.  Please feel free to contact me about these comments
(703-907-7576).

Sincerely,

Holly Evans

Director of Environmental Affairs

Deputy General Counsel 

 PAGE   5 

 PAGE   2 

