P. 1



# RCRA Box 1883 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 95 ) ll-B-25 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/3/200810:42:16

AM Sheet 95of 171P. 2 

# I t , ' * 

# vvEP A A-90-1 9 ll-B-25 7 United State s •Office o fAi rQualit

y Environmenta l Protectio n Plannin g an d Stand : Agenc y Researc h Triangl e F Preventio n an d Toxi i 

# Nationa l Ai rPollutio n Contro l Technique s Advisor y Committee Minutes o

fMeetin g Novembe r19-21,199 1 Volum e 1 o

f2 ljU_iBJiL,[

j n SE P UI99 2 '.''; " EP A AI R DOCKE "

Printed on Recycled

PaperP. 3

Tw o Volume Set : Volum e 1 (Sectio n I - X )

Volum e 2 (Sectio n I , X I - XVIII , an d Appendix ) TABL E O F CONTENT S PAG E I . ' INTRODUCTIO

NAN D OPENIN

G REMARK S Bruc e C . Jordan , Committe e Chairman 1 Director , Emissio n Standard s Divisio n (ESD ) Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standards , EPA II . GENERAL PROVISION S A . EP APresentatio n Michel e Dubow , ES D 5 B . Industr

yPresentatio n Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n 1 9 Dann yAnderso n Vic e Presiden t o f Environmenta l Affair s Firs t Chemica l Corporatio n a . Supplementa l Comment s 22 . C . Discussio n 2 8 III . HAZARDOU S ORGANI C NATIONA L EMISSIO

NSTANDARD S FOR HAZARDOU S AI R POLLUTANT S (NESHAP ) A . EP APresentatio n Daphn e McMurrer , ES D 3 3 B . Industr

yPresentatio n Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n 4 3 Thoma s Robinso n Manage r o f RegulatoryAffair s Vulca n Chemical s Corporatio n C . Discussio n 4 8 IV . COK E OVE NNESHAP A . EP APresentatio n Amand a Agnew , ES D 5 3 B . Discussio n 6 6 V . DR Y CLEANIN

G NESHAP A . EP APresentatio n Lind a Herring , ES D 6 7P. 4



### PAG E B . Industr

yPresentatio n

. r.hricar e Institut e * l . internationa l Fafcr i presiden t Willia mFisher , Vic e « r

............. . 8 3 C . Discussion VI . CHROMIU

M ELECTROPLATIN

G NESHAP AEP Apresentatio n Lali t Banker , ES D 8 7 B . Discussio n 9 9 VII . SECTIO

N112 g A . EP APresentatio n Ti mSmith , ES D 10 5 B . Industr

yPresentation s

• 1 . Moto r Vehicl e Manufacturer s Associatio n . . 11 9 Richar d Pau l Manager , Environmenta l Healt h 2 . America n Petroleu mInstitut e . 12 5 F . Dan Geal y Director , Publi c Relation s Atlanti c Richfiel d Compan y 3 . Pharmaceutica l Manufacturer s Associatio n . 13 1 Richar d Vette r Associat e Counse l Burrough s Wellcome 4 . Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n . . . . 14 0 Jo e Woolber t Principa l Chemica l Enginee r Texa s Eastma n Chemica l Compan y C . Discussio n ........... . 14 5 VIII . SOURC E CATEGOR Y SCHEDUL E FO

R STANDARD S A . EP APresentatio n Davi d Svendsgaar d an d Chuc k French , ES D ... . 15 5

* Di d no t provid e a cop yo f presentatio n fo r inclusio n i n th e minutes .

nP. 5

A : EPAPRESENTATION Daphn e McMurre r o f th e Standard s Developmen t Branch , presenter , opene d b yreminding everyon e tha t th e Hazardou s Organi c NESHAP (HON ) i s schedule d t o b e propose d in.lat e February o r earl yMarc h 1992 , an d promulgate d i n Novembe r 1992 . I t i s expecte d tha t 11 0 o f th e 18 9 hazardou s ai r pollutant s (HAP ) liste d i n th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s (CAAA ) o f 199 0 wil l b e regulate d b

yth e HON . Th e HONwil l b e applicabl e t o al l Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturing Industr y(SOCMI ) processe s whic h produc e a HA P a s a product , by-product , co-product , intermediate , o r us e a HA P a s a reactan t o r rawmaterial . Onl ymajo r sources , a s define d b yth e CAAA , wil l b e regulated . Th e EPAwil l b e seeking commen t o n th e existenc e o f SOCM I are a source s an d th e applicabilit yo f th e HO N t o are a source s i n th e propose d standard . Th e remainder , an d majority , o f th e presentatio n addresse d th e concep t o f emission s averaging . Th e averaging scheme fo r th e HONi s being develope d t o addres s th e complexit yan d diversit ywithi n th e sourc e category . Becaus e o f thi s complexit yan d diversity , ther e ca n b e a significan t cos t incurre d fo r individua l source s usin g point-by

poin t compliance . Emission s averaging i s intende d t o provid e flexibilit yan

d allo wequa l o r greate r emissio n reduction s a t lowe r costs . Thi s concep t differ s fro mbubbling sinc e n o emissio n cap s wil l b e set . Th e setting o f emissio n cap s unde r previou s bubbling policie s di d no t accoun t fo r decrease s i n productio n o r dismantling o f equipment . A s a result , whe n on e o r mor e o f thes e event s occurred , th e remaining emissio n point s wer e fre e t o emi t mor e tha n originall yintende d withou t exceeding th e emissio n cap . Emission s averaging wil l tak e int o accoun t change s t o th e sourc e an

d kee p emission s fro m individua l emissio n point s a t th e intende d level .



### -f tP. 6

Th e scop e o f th e HO Nemission s averaging wil l b e determine d b yth e definitio n o f "source. " Th e curren t definitio n include s al l produc t proces s unit s regulate d b yth e HON , i n a contiguou s area , tha t ar e unde r commo n control . Emission s averaging wil l no t b e allowe d wit h an yproduc t proces s unit s whic h ar e no t regulate d b

yth e HO

N(outsid e th e definitio n o f source) . Emission s averaging mayinclud e emission s fro meligibl e proces s vents , storag e tanks , wastewate r streams , an d transfe r loading racks . Emission s fro mequipmen t leak s wil l b e exclude d fro m emission s averaging du e t o th e uncertaint yinvolve d i n quantifying emissions , th e inabilit yt o assign a known , nomina l emission s contro l efficienc yrating , an d becaus e th e equipment , leak s standar d wa s develope d through th e regulatorynegotiatio n proces s an

d including i t woul d nullif yth e agreemen t reached . Th e for m an d complianc e plan s being develope d wil l indicat e wha t requirement s ar e presente d an d describe d i n th e regulation . Complianc e requirement s wil l includ e quarterl yemission s limit s t o allo wmor e flexibilit yi n administrating an d enforcing emission s averaging . Complianc e requirement s wil l als o includ e point-by-poin t commitment s fo r th e applicatio n o f contro l device s o n emissio n point s involve d i n a n average . Mas s emissio n estimate s wil l b e require d fo r al l emissio n point s include d i n th e averages . Al l complianc e commitment s wil l b e par t o f th e Titl e V permits . An

ychang e mad e b

ya sourc e t o th e structur e o f th e emission s averag e wil l b e reviewe d b yth e Stat e a s par t o f administering th e Titl e V permits . Alternativ e operating scenario s ca n b e planne d an d include d i n th e permi t s o tha t a sourc e ha s th e flexibilit yt o mak e change s withou t automaticall y violating th e emission s average . Fo r emission s averaging , under-controlling a n emissio n poin t wil l b e regarde d a s a debit , whil e over-controlling a n emissio n poin t wil l b e regarde d a s a credit . Th e thre e way s t o obtai n credit s ar e discusse d below . First , credit s mayb e generate d b y controlling eligibl e emissio n point s tha t ar e no t require d t o appl ycontrol . Fo r example , credit s woul d b e give n fo r controlling a smal l storag e tank tha t mayb e belo wth e siz e applicabilit ycriteri a fo r th e HON , an d woul d no t b e require d t oP. 7

appl yemissio n controls . Second , credit s ca n b e generate d by usin g highe r efficienc ycontrol s tha n require d b yth e standard . Th e highe r efficienc ymus t b e achieve d byusin g a differen t contro l technolog ytha n tha t require d byth e regulation , an d no t b yusin g th e sam e contro l technolog ya t increase d efficiency . Fo r example , th e standar d ma yrequir e 9 8 percen t contro l efficienc yo n a proces s ven t an d i f th e sourc e use d a differen t contro l technolog ywhic h ha d a n EP Anomina l efficienc yratin g o f 9 9 percent , i t woul d receiv e credi t fo r th e 1 percen t additiona l control . Th e thir d wa yt o generat e credit s i s t o us e approve d pollutio n preventio n methods . Thi s ca n b e use d o n point s fo r whic h contro l i s o r i s no t required . A s wit h th e abov e method s t o generat e a credit , th e emissio n reductio n mus t b e greate r tha n tha t require d b yth e standar d fo r th e relevan t emission s points . Credit s canno t b e generate d byproductio n cutback s o r any control s applie d befor e promulgatio n o f th e standard , excep t control s applie d a s par t o f th e Earl yReduction s progra man d pollutio n preventio n measure s take n sinc e 1987 . Thes e allowance s ar e provide d t o encourag e participatio n i n th e Earl yReduction s progra man d rewar d innovativ e emissio n reduction s mad e befor e th e standar d i s promulgated . Th e fina l topi c discusse d wa s th e us e an d valu e o f a discountin g factor . Adiscountin g facto r reduce s th e valu e o f emissio n credit s generate d a s par t o f a n emission s average , therebyensurin g greate r emissio n reduction s tha n woul d b e achieve d usin g point-by-poin t compliance . I t i s judge d byEP A tha t th e us e o f a discountin g facto r i s fai r an d reasonabl e becaus e o f cos t saving s achieve d usin g emission s averaging . Th e discountin g facto r chose n wil l reflec t uncertaintie s i n emission s estimatio n procedures . Th e state s fee l tha t ther e i s grea t uncertaint yfo r som e o f th e emissio n estimatio n procedure s currentl ybein g used , an d th e discountin g facto r shoul d compensat e fo r thos e uncertainties . Th e facto r wil l onl yb e applie d t o th e emissio n point s generatin g credit s t o b e use d i n emission s averaging .

i J

# f HAZARDOU S ORGANI C NESHA P

(HON )

(V ?



# Novembe r19,199 1

0 0

# f 1 Structur e o fth e HO N Applicability -SOCM I

- "Majo rSources " 

# Requirements fo rVents , Tanks , Transfe r& Waste Wate r

- poin t b

y poin t complianc e

- emission s averagin g 

# Requirements fo rEquipmen t Leak s

C O

# EMISSION S AVERAGIN G fo rth e 

# HO N

GOAL : Equa l o rGreate rEmission s Reduction s a t a Lowe rCos

t

# 1

SCOP E Se t b y definitio n o

f"Source "
*



# - SOCM I product proces s unit s

- regulate d b

y HO N

- i n a contiguou s are a

- unde rcommo n contro l 

# Equipmen t leak

s exclude d du e t o uncertainty o

femission s• P 

# FOR M & COMPLIANC E PLAN S Quarterl y Emission s Limi t Compliance

- poin t b

y poin t committments

- emission s accountin g fo rpoint s i n averages 

# Titl e V Permits I

# 1

CREDIT S 3 Ways t o generate credits :

- controllin g points withou t contro l requirement s

- usin g highe refficiency control s tha n require d

- pollutio n preventio n 

# Cannot generat e credit s with :

- productio n cutback

s

- pre-existin g controls , except Earl y Reductio n Control s Pollutio n Preventio n since 1987

T l

# 1 

# Discountin g Facto r > Onl y applie d t o point s generatin g credit s Used t o reflect

- cos t saving s

- uncertaintie s i n emission s estimate s

_P.1 5 

# C M

STATEMEN T O F THOMAS ROBINSO

N O N BEHALF O

F THE CHEMICA

L MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATIO N BEFOR E THE NATIONA L AI RPOLLUTIO

N CONTROL TECHNIQUE S ADVISOR YCOMMITTEE O N EPA' S DEVELOPMEN

T O F NATIONA

L EMISSIO

N STANDARD S FO RHAZARDOU S AI RPOLLUTANT S (NESHAP ) FO RHAZARDOU S ORGANIC S NOVEMBE R19 , 199 1



### J250 1 M Street , N W202-887-110 0 Washington , D.C

. 2003 7 Telex8961 7 (CM AWSH )P.1 6

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATION TESTIMON

YBEFOR E TH E NATIONAL AI RPOLLUTION CONTRO L TECHNIQUE S ADVISORYCOMMITTE E O N EPA' S DEVELOPMEN T O F NATIONAL EMISSIO N STANDARD S FO RHAZARDOU S AI RPOLLUTANT S (NESHAP ) FORHAZARDOU S ORGANIC S

Goo dmorning . I' m Thoma s Robinson . I' m Manage r o f Regulatory Affair s a t Vulca nChemical s Corporation . I appreciat e the opportunit y t o testif y

toda y onbehal f o f th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Association . CM A i s a non-profi t trad e association - whos e member s mak e upmor e tha n9 0 percen t o f th e productiv e capacit y for basi c industria l chemical s inthe Unite dStates . Inm y presentatio ntoday , I wil l touc hbriefl y onthe HO

N issue s tha t ar e mos t importan t t o member s o f CMA . A s youmigh t wel l imagine , the impac t o f thes e regulation s wil l b e significan t for CMA' s membe r companies . On e o f th e mos t importan t issue s i s emission s trading . It' s a cost-effectiv e an

defficien t way

t o achiev e the regulation' s pollutio n contro l objectives . A t th e sam

e time , averagin g wil l hel pour industry sta y competitiv e inanincreasingl y competitiv e worl deconomy . I nou r view , ever

y effor t shoul db e mad e t o mak e th e averagin g progra m a s straightforwar da s possible , a s effectiv e a s possible , an d a s simpl e t o manag e a s possible—fo r bot hth e regulator s an dthe regulated . Point-by-poin t tradin g wil l kee padministratio no f th e progra m simple . Havin g th e flexibilit y t o trad e acros s emissio ntype s an d betwee nproces s unit s wil l b e key , inthe lon g run , t o achievin g a successfu l averagin g program .

Base do nou r experience , tradin g shoul dbe allowe dbetwee nal l unit s ina sourc e category ; betwee nal l unit s wit hthe sam e MAC T standards ; an

dbetwee nal l sourc e categorie s regulate dona singl e promulgatio ndate.A s th e scop e o f emission s tradin g expands , ther e ar e mor e opportunitie s for environmenta l benefits .
Anothe r importan t issu e for a successfu l averagin g progra m involve s credits . I nou r view , source s shoul dreceiv e credi t for emission s control s tha t ar e mor e stringen t tha nMAC T an dfor emission sP.1 7

control s tha t aren' t covere db y the standard—regardles s o f whe nthe control s wer e installed . No t allowin g credi t for control s applie dbefor e a nartificia l baselin e dat e i s counterproductive . I t punishe s companie s whic hhav e takenthe initiative--voluntarily--t o reduc e emissions . I t als o directl y

conflict s wit hothe r EP A programs , mos t notabl y the agency' s Industria l Toxic s Program , als o know na s the "33/50 " program . Denyin g credi t wil l simpl y delay the installatio no f non-require d contro l device s an dtechnologies . Th e resul t o f tha t wil l be a ne t los s t o th e environment . Whe nmeasurin g credits , a discountin g facto r i s no t necessary when calculating credit s for emission s averagin g becaus e EPA' s contro l efficiencie s an

dthe emission s averagin g progra m conservativel y estimat e actua l emissions . Anothe r key

elemen t o f the HO N i s d e minimi s cutoffs . W e se e the

m a s a nintegra l par t o f the standard-settin g procedure—i nlarg e measur e becaus e they

achiev e the mos t environmenta l benefi t pe r implementatio n dollar . Pu t anothe r way , d e minimi s cutoff s wil l retur nthe mos t environmenta l benefi t for eac hdolla r spent . Th e de minimi s concep t i s alread y embodie dinindividua l stat e regulations , existin g NSP S standards , th e federa l concep t o f Tota l Resourc e Effectiveness , an dthe recentl y

negotiate dregulatio no n equipmen t leaks . Withou t d e minimi s cutoff s MAC T woul dappl y t o al l emission s point s wit hlittl e o r no ne t positiv e effec t onthe environment . Requiring th e applicatio no f technology beyondthe poin t o f diminishin g benefit s wil l b e counter-productive . A thirdkey

issu e wil l b e th e definitio no f "source " an d"majo r source" . EP

A shoul ddefin e majo r sourc e broadly , including contiguou s facilitie s init s definition . A broa ddefinitio nsatisfie s th e fundamenta l purpos e o f the ne w regulatory

regim e for ai r toxics , focusing o nefficien t applicatio no f technolog

y base dstandards . A broaddefinitio no f "source " wil l allo w th e Agenc y

t o mandat e control s for individua l emissio npoints . A t the sam e time , i t wil l maximiz e the impac t o f thes e control s t o reduc e a plant' s overal l emissions . This , o f course , i s the inten t o f the Act . HO N applicabilit y

i s ver

y importan t t o ou r members . Source s need a simpl e syste

m t o determin e applicabilit y clearl y

an dconclusively . I f eachproces s i s regulate donc e unde r a singl e se t o f applicabl e regulations , industry wil l b e mos t effectivel y an defficientl y regulate dunde r the Act . Th e HO N MAC T i s a sourc e category base dstandard . Consequently , applicabilit y

criteri a mus t determin e whethe r a sourc e "reside s within " a sourc e category

regulate db

y the HO

N MACT . Unit s regulate db y th e HO N shoul dno t b e subjec t t o later , possibl y incompatibl e MAC T standards .P.1 8

Once a sourc e ha s bee n"assigned " t o a sourc e category , i t wil l kno w exactl y

whic hregulation s i t mus t follow , an dwhe ni t mus t comply . Al l hazardou s emission s wil l b e effectivel y regulate db

y th e standar dcoverin g tha t category . Thi s approac hwil l alleviat e muc ho f industry' s uncertainty , an deas e EPA' s administrativ e burden . Withou t clearl y

define dapplicabilit y criteria , th e limit s o f the regulate dpopulatio nwil l continu e t o expandan di t wil l become mor e difficul t t o define . Potentially , th e HO N coul dexpandt o cove r al l unit s tha t creat e trac e amount s o f a state dchemical , stretchin g far beyondthe syntheti c organi c chemica l manufacturin g industry an d becomin g anadministrativ e nightmare . . Th e las t genera l HO N issu e I wan t t o rais e i s timing an d compliance . I f EPA promulgate s a singl e HO N encompassin g al l o f SOCM I a t on e time , i t wil l b e difficult , perhap s impossible , for industry t o mee t require dcomplianc e deadlines . Equipmen t shortages , delaye d deliveries , overburdene dagencie s facing ne w level s o f permi t applications , an

da scarcit y

o f interna l resource s ar e al l formidabl e obstacle s t o compliance . Unde r thi s scenario , a sourc e ma y fin ditsel f unabl e t o compl y du e t o event s beyondit s control , suc ha s delay s inconstructio npermits . Th e Agenc y

mus t provid e for thes e possibilitie s i nit s complianc e timeline . Furthermore , EPA

shoul dconsider , init s developmen t o f lowe r quantit y

threshol dregulations , th e impac t suc hregulation s wil l hav e o nth e HON . Th e scop e o f th e HO N i s alread

y broad , coverin g ove r hal f o f th e liste dsourc e categories . A significan t lowering o f lesse r quantit y

thresholds , an

da subsequen t increas e i nth e numbe r o f source s tryin g t o compl y

withi nth e nex t fe w years , wil l furthe r increas e th e burde no noverloade dagencies . I t wil l als o increas e th e difficult y o f obtainin g contro l equipmen t ina reasonabl e tim e frame .

EPA shoul dconside r th e ne t environmenta l benefit s o f contro l technologie s whe nconsiderin g alternativ e technologie s an dsetting MAC T standards . Increase dNO xemission s an dfue l consumptio nar e bot h by-product s o f familia r contro l technologies . I narea s o f non-attainment , the maximu m environmenta l improvemen t may be achieve d b y usin g a marginall y les s efficien t technology t o achiev e a balanc e betwee ntoxics , NOx , SOx , an denergy

consumption . I woul dlike t o spendm y remainin g tim

e discussin g a specifi c are a o f the HO

N - secondary

emission s fro

m wastewater . Th e HO N include s industria l wastewate r becaus e volatil e ai r toxic s fro m wastewate r collectio nan dtreatmen t system s canb e release dt o the atmosphere . CM

A support s the regulatio no f wastewate r emissions . However , ther e ar e way s t o maximiz e overal l control s an dminimiz e costs . No t al l HAP' s canvaporiz e t o th e atmosphere . CM A encourage s the Agenc y t o implemen t a tiere dapproac ht o controllin g wastewate r 

# LP.1 9

emission s base donphysica l chemistry . Onl y volatil e Grou p1 compound s -thos e whic hhav e th e correc t physica l propertie s t o actuall y ente r th e atmospher e - shoul db e regulated . Non-volatil e compound s which , b y the law s o f physic s an

dchemistry , canno t leave th e wastewate r matri x shoul dno t b e regulated . A clea r applicabilit y procedur e for wastewater , including de minimi s cutoffs , i s als o necessary . Thi s insure s tha t critica l secondary

emission s ar e regulate dan dnon-volatil e one s ar e excluded . CM A i s concerne dwit hth e Agency' s us e o f Referenc e Metho d25 D t o analyz e emission s fro m wastewater . Thi s analytica l metho dshoul dno t b e usedunde r th e HON . I t doe s no t correctl y identif y

th e trul y volatil e constituen t o f tota l organic s presen t inth e wastewate r matrix . Metho d25 D wil l resul t inth e unnecessar y an dcostl y

contro l o f man y wastewate r stream s whic hhav e n o significan t hazardou s emissions .
CM A doe s no t suppor t stea m strippin g a s the optima l contro l technolog

y for wastewate r emissions . Stea m strippin g i s inappropriat e fo r man y HAP chemical s tha t ar e reactiv e wit hwater , infinitivel y soluble , o r for

m azeotropes . Stea m strippin g i s pron e t o operationa l problem s an

di t i s difficul t t o dispos e o f the strippe dresidues . Stea m strippin g i s als o incompatibl e wit hrecentl y upgrade dbiologica l treatmen t facilitie s require dunde r Clea nWate r Ac t regulations . Finally , th e agenc y shoul dexemp t thos e system s whic har e close d t o atmosphere . T o d o this , th e poin t o f generatio nmus t b e clearl y define da s th e firs t air-wate r interfac e wit hth e potentia l for organi c releas e t o th e atmosphere . Inconclusion , CM

A thank s the NAPCTAC committe e for thi s opportunit y

t o presen t som

e o f ou r idea s an dconcern s regardin g the HON . We loo

k forwar dt o workin g wit hwit hEP A a s i t move s forwardin the rulemaking process . A t thi s poin t I'l l b e please dt o answe r an y question s fro

m th e committee .Discussio n Following th e EPApresentation , Mr . Bruc e Jordan , Directo r o f th e Emissio n Standard s Division , discusse d th e four goal s o f th e HO Nstandard . Th e firs t goa l wa s t o provid e flexibilit yt o industr yt o hel p minimiz e th e cost s o f meeting th e standard . Th e secon d wa s t o provid e eas e o f implementation . Thir d wa s certaint yi n enforceability . And fourt h wa s t o preven t environmenta l damage . Committe e membe r Mr . Donal d Arkel l (Lane Regiona l Ai r Pollutio n Authority ) opene d th e questio n segmen t b yasking how ne wand existing emissio n point s woul d b e distinguishe d fo r th e purpose s o f emission s averaging . Ms . McMurre r replie d tha t Sectio n 112(g ) o f th e CAA Adetermine s ne wemissio n point s withi n th e boundarie s o f th e existing source . Sh e state d tha t ne w emissio n point s ar e no t availabl e fo r averaging , an d woul d b e subjec t t o th e ne wsourc e MACT . Existing point s withi n a sourc e ma yonl yb e average d wit h othe r existing points . Mr . Arkel l aske d i f tha t mean t ne wan d existing source s coul d no t b e average d together . Mr . Jorda n replie d tha t wa s indee d correct . Ms . McMurre r too k thi s opportunit yt o reiterat e th e definitio n o f th e term s emissio n poin t an d source . A

n emissio n poin t i s an individua l tank o r proces s ven t whil e a sourc e (a s define d i n th e presentation ) i s th e collectio n o f SOCM I proces s unit s subjec t t o th e HONi n a contiguou s are a unde r commo n control . Mr . Arkel l note d tha t th e emission s averaging accounting proces s sounde d difficult , specificall yth e calculatio n o f quarterl yemissio n estimates . Dr . Ja n Meyer , Standard s Developmen t Branch , answere d tha t whil e extr a recordkeeping woul d b e required , th e rul e wil l giv e explici t instruction s o n howt o calculat e emission s fo r th e point s include d i n emission s averages . Th e dat a use d t o estimat e emission s wil l b e site

specific . T o compl ywit h th e rule , source s mus t als o sho wth e parameter s theyus e t o demonstrat e thei r prope r us e o f contro l technology .

i 

# L P.2 0P.2 1

Committe e membe r Mr . Bria n Tarant o (Exxon Chemica l Americas ) asked wha t activitie s coul d generat e emissio n credits , specificall yactivitie s relate d t o th e applicatio n o f earl y reductio n control s covere d unde r Sectio n 112(i ) o f th e Act . Ms . McMurre r replie d tha t thos e source s tha t ar e par t o f th e Earl yReduction s progra m woul d b e give n credi t fo r thei r applicatio n o f control s tha t ar e mor e stringen t than th e HO N standard . Mr . Tarant o aske d i f othe r emissio n reductio n activitie s take n befor e promulgatio n woul d generat e emissio n credits . Ms . McMurre r replie d tha t onl yactivitie s unde r th e Earl yReduction s progra man d pollutio n preventio n activitie s sinc e 198 7 woul d generat e credits . A t thi s time , Mr . Tarant o aske d whethe r emission s averaging woul d b e applicabl e t o othe r MAC T standard s beside s HON . Mr . Jorda n replie d tha t emission s averaging i s currentl ybeing considere d onl yfo r th e HONan d tha t th e EP

Awoul d revie wit s applicabilit yt o othe r MAC T standard s o n a case-by-cas e basis . Mr . Jorda n state d tha t emission s averaging wil l b e studie d internall yb

yth e EP

Aan d tha t comment s wil l b e collecte d an d considere d betwee n proposa l an d promulgatio n and , i f warranted , emission s averaging coul d b e remove d fro m th e promulgate d standard . Ms . Deborah Sheima n (Natura l Resource s Defens e Council ) asked whethe r a quantitativ e analysi s o f th e averaging scheme had been don e t o determin e th e expecte d chang e i n emissions . Ms . McMurre r answere d tha t emission s ar e expecte d t o b e equa l t o thos e withou t averaging , o r les s usin g a discounting factor . Th e actua l decreas e depend s o n th e discounting facto r chosen . Ms . Sheiman the n state d tha t th e emissio n level s fro mwhic h th e source s ar e starting d o no t necessaril yreflec t MACT . Mr . Jorda n reiterate d th e EPA' s positio n tha t emission s averaging wil l achieve th e same amoun t o r greate r emissio n reduction s than woul d be achieve d otherwise . Ms . McMurre r state d tha t credit s ca n onl y be generate d b

ycontrolling emission s abov e th e level s se t b yth e technica l requirements . Mr . Jorda n expounde d o n Ms . McMurrer' s statemen t b

ysaying that , fo r example , ever yproces s ven t mayno t be controlle d b

yth e HO

Nan d thi s woul d provid e a sourc e opportunitie s t o achiev e emissio n credits .P.2 2

Mr . Ralp h His e (Advance d Technologie s Management , Inc. ) questione d whethe r th e us e o f mor e stringen t control s (i.e. , innovativ e technologies ) fo r credit s woul d chang e th e determinatio n o f MACT . Dr . Ja n Meye r an d Mr . Jorda n bot h emphasize d tha t MAC T mus t b e universall yapplicabl e an d tha t ther e ma

yb e individua l case s wher e a mor e stringen t contro l technolog

yca n b e applie d tha t woul d no t b e widel yapplicabl e t o othe r simila r emissio n points . Ms . Vivia n Mclntir e (Eastman Chemical s Company ) discusse d th e subjec t o f quarterl yemissio n limits , specificall ya s they relate d t o compliance . Sh e aske d th e attendee s t o suppos e ther e wer e tw o vent s involve d i n a n emission s average . On e ven t wa s i n complianc e whil e th e othe r ven t wa s not . Sh e questione d whether , a s a result , yo u woul d b e ou t o f complianc e fo r th e entir e quarter . Ms . McMurre r responde d tha t yes , yo u woul d b e ou t o f complianc e fo r th e entir e quarter . Sh e explaine d tha t a quarte r consist s o f a three-mont h rolling average . Ms . Mclntir e the n aske d wha t happen s i f yo u ar e ou t o f complianc e an d whethe r th e state s wil l b e give n th e authorit yt o decid e complianc e status . Ms . McMurre r replie d tha t enforcemen t actio n fo r a n emission s averaging non-complianc e woul d b e simila r t o enforcemen t action s take n i n th e absenc e o f emission s averaging an d tha t state s ar e give n authorit yt o determin e complianc e sinc e theyestablis h th e permits . Mr . Willia

mDenniso n (Denniso n an d Associates ) aske d whethe r th e discounting facto r o f 2 0 percen t i s workabl e an d whethe r o r no t i t incorporate s an ysafet yfactor . Ms . McMurre r replie d tha t th e propose d rul e seek s commen t o n th e nee d an d valu e o f th e discounting factor . Sh e state d tha t EPAwelcome d feedbac k on thi s topic . Next , Mr . Denniso n state d tha t th e standar d di d no t seemt o allowa reductio n i n productio n t o generat e credits . Ms . McMurre r replie d tha t th e productio n change s resulting i n differen t emission s ar e allowed . However , i f an yemissio n point s associate d wit h th e equipmen t experiencing change s i n productio n level s wer e involve d i n an emission s average , an yunanticipate d debit s woul d nee d t o b e balance d wit h additiona l credits . Ms .P.2 3

McMurre r furthe r state d tha t Mr . Denniso n wa s correc t i n saying tha t productio n reduction s coul d no t b e credited . Dr . Joh n Pinkerto n (Nationa l Counci l o f th e Pape r Industr y fo r Ai r an

d Strea mImprovement , Inc. ) aske d ho wwastewate r ai r emission s fi t int o th e emission s averaging concept . Dr . Meye r replie d tha t emission s fro mHO Nwastewate r ar e distinguishabl e fro mothe r wastewate r becaus e theyar e estimate d a t an d controlle d fro

mth e poin t o f generation . Dr . Pinkerto n wen t o n t o stat e tha t i f h e understoo d correctly , credit s coul d no t b e receive d fo r controlling wastewate r emission s fro mnon-SOCM I processes . Ms . McMurre r state d tha t thi s wa s correct . Committe e membe r Mr . Willia mO'Sullivan (N . J . Departmen t o f Environmenta l Protection ) commente d that , a s a representativ e o f stat e agencies , h e wa s oppose d t o emission s averaging , especiall y fo r ne wsource s o r ne wemissio n points . Mr . O'Sullivan the n provide d EP

Awit h thre e recommendations . Th e firs t recommendatio n wa s t o includ e enforceabl e short-ter memissio n limit s wit h point-by-poin t commitments . Second , Mr . O'Sullivan disagree d wit h th e assignmen t o f nomina l contro l efficienc y values . H e note d th e wid e variation s i n performanc e an d recommende d tha t differen t efficiencie s b e assigne d fo r differen t level s o f contro l fo r a contro l technology . Third , Mr . O'Sullivan state d tha t unde r th e Earl yReduction s program , credit s ca n b e generate d through proces s shutdowns . Mr . O'Sullivan fel t tha t shutdow n credit s shoul d no t b e allowe d withi n th e emission s averaging program . Next , Ms . Sheima n aske d ho wpollutio n preventio n i s being defined . Ms . McMurre r answere d tha t th e definitio n fro mth e Pollutio n Preventio n Ac t o f 199 0 wa s being used . Dr . Meye r adde d tha t sinc e pollutio n preventio n wa s being incorporate d int o th e HON , th e rul e woul d giv e th e definitio n a s well . Ms . Sheiman added tha t sh e fel t tha t pollutio n preventio n coul d b e use d a s a loophole . Fo r th e fina l question , committe e membe r Dr . Patric k Atkin s (Aluminu mCompan

yo f America ) aske d wh yth e Industria l Toxic s Progra m(ITP ) wa s no t include d a s an activit yfo r generatingP.2 4

emissio n credits . Mr . Jorda n replie d tha t man yo f th e activitie s take n unde r thi s progra mar e pollutio n prevention , measure s and , therefore , woul d b e creditabl e unde r th e HON . Thos e action s tha t ar e par t o f th e ITP , bu t ar e no t pollutio n prevention , ar e no t . creditabl e becaus e th e IT P i s voluntary , an d thu s no t enforceabl e lik e th e Earl yReduction s program .



# L