P.1 

OAR Box 1875 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

9) ll-E-27 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/1/2008 11:12:44 AM Sheet 9 of 86 
P.2 

•t ' A-90-19 

RADIAN " *" 

CORPORATIO N 

y. o£C I 8 \992 

September 18, 1991 ; c-,/\/ 

Progress Center 

' 3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwv. 

P.O. Box 13000 

' Research Triangle Park. N.C. 27709 

-——-",:""••,- \ " (919)541-9100 

»i< * 

Dr. Janet S. Meyer 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-13) 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Dear Jan: 

This is the final draft of these meeting notes. Your comments 

have been incorporated in full. Please call if you have any 

questions or further comments. 

Sincerely, 

Bennett King 

Project Director 

BK/ls 

cc: Bob Rosensteel, EPA/CPB 

Les Evans, EPA/CPB 

Linda Chaput, EPA/SDB 

Ruth Mead, Radian 

Tracy Gionfriddo, Radian 

Project File 22.0 (M. Haley) 
P.3 

MEETING NOTES 

FROM: Bennett King, Radian 

TO: Jan Meyer, EPA/SDB 

DATE: September 11, 1991 

SUBJECT: EPA/CMA Meeting of July 23, 1991 

ATTENDEES: See Attachment 1 

This meeting was requested by CMA and is a follow-up to a 

meeting held on June 11, 1991. An agenda was provided for the 

meeting and is included as Attachment 2. The four subject areas 

on the agenda were discussed. The main discussion topics are 

summarized below. 

Phase-In of MACT Standards 

The CMA provided a hand-out with six options for 

implementing a phase-in approach for the HON (Attachment 3). 

Options V and VI also address issues that are independent of the 

decision on phasing standards. Option V deals with the potential 

for permitting to significantly increase the time required for 

compliance, and Option VI presents a proposed streamlined 

approach for one-year extension on compliance time. 

The CMA's concerns are that implementation of the HON on the 

entire SOCMI at once will create gridlock in a number of areas 

(engineering services, vendor supplies, and permitting). This 

will make complying with the HON within the 3 years allowed under 

the CAAA very difficult. 

MCH/016 
P.4 

Summary of CMA's Proposed Options for Phase-In 

Option 1 - Separate Rulemakings or Applicability Dates -

This option is similar to the Equipment Leaks phasing only 

compliance goes beyond 3 years. This would require separate 

rulemakings for each phase. 

Option 2 - Phase-in MACT for SOCMI by Phasing Applicability 

Criteria with Respect to Source Characteristics - The CMA 

felt one possible interpretation of the CAAA allowed 

compliance to be measured from the applicability dates 

rather than promulgation. They also felt there was no limit 

on when the standards could begin applying to certain 

subgroups of the regulated sources. These subgroups would 

be defined with respect to source characteristics such as 

tank size for storage or flowrate for process vents. 

Option 3 - "Source-Wide" Bubble Phase-In - This option would 

require a source to meet the total emission reduction 

required by all the applicable HON standards in a step-wise 

fashion. An example of this would be to require that 3 3 

percent of control be applied within 3 years, 66 percent 

within 5 years, and 100 percent within 7 years. This option 

would leave the decision of which emission source type to 

control at what time up to the source as long as the 

requirements were met. 

Option 4 - Phase-In MACT for SOCMI by Phasing Applicability 

of the 5 Generic Standards that will Comprise MACT for 

Production Processes - The outcome of this option is the 

same as option 3 except that a source would be told which 

emission source types had to be controlled by when. It was 

the CMA's hope that this option could be done with a single 

rulemaking package. 

MCH/016 
P.5 

Option 5 - Tying Permit Review to MACT Compliance - This 

option envisions providing additional compliance time to 

make up for excessive permit review time. The proposal was 

to allow 3 years for compliance after a permit was obtained. 

EPA indicated that this is not a legal option if it allows 

compliance time, as measured from the promulgated date, to 

go beyond 3 years. 

Option 6 - Provide Minimum Criteria for Accepting Petitions 

Requesting One-Year Extensions - This is not really a 

phasing option but is a way for sources to get more time for 

compliance. EPA felt that this guidance would be-provided 

at some point during the rulemaking. 

A crucial issue with phase-in continues to be the legality 

of extending compliance beyond the 3-year limit cited in the 

CAAA. The EPA indicated that a standard cannot legally allow 

compliance time beyond 3 years. The EPA HON team is working with 

the Office of General Counsel to confirm the EPA position on this 

issue. A second issue is whether or not phase-in of the HON will 

in fact alleviate the CMA's concerns. It is unlikely this issue 

will be resolved before proposal. It is the EPA's current 

position that the HON should be proposed without phasing and the 

issue should be presented as part of the preamble. 

Test Methods 

At the previous meeting, the EPA expressed a desire to 

receive test data comparing the results between two test methods 

(Method 18 and Method 25). A brief survey by CMA found that the 

two methods were not commonly used together so no comparative 

data was available. 

The CMA requested that the HON allow flexibility for 

selecting between the two methods or validating a new method. 

Copies of the validation protocol (Method 301) were distributed. 

MCH/016 3 
P.6 

HON Applicability 

How to determine whether or not a process unit would be 

subject to the HON continues to be difficult to specify in 

regulatory language. The EPA presented a draft flow chart 

(Attachment 4) of the applicability determination for discussion. 

A major source of miscommunication is a lack of agreement on 

the meaning of such terms as produce, product, reactant, 

by-product, co-product, etc. It was suggested by the CMA that 

the HON could be refined to only regulate processes where the 

product was a HAP or the main reactant was a HAP (both of these 

terms would need to be defined). This would require lessening 

the scope of the HON relative to the current analysis which 

includes SOCMI processes producing an organic HAP as a 

by-product, co-product, or intermediate. 

The EPA requested suggestions for different ways to 

precisely and clearly identify those operations that are in the 

scope of the SOCMI and to clearly exclude activities that are 

outside SOCMI. It was concluded that further work and discussion 

on this area was needed. 

MACT Issues 

CMA requested that EPA explain how draft regulatory options 

tables should be interpreted. These tables are included as 

Attachment 5. EPA gave brief description of the procedures and 

methodology used to estimate emissions, emission reductions, and 

control costs. It was emphasized that the tables should be 

treated as examples only and that they are subject to change. 

Attachments 

MCH/016 
3 

O 

X 

o 

»-• 

ot-

,

oss«Qt

r to^5oc^(L(>ost3B»to>t-'seo o 

PlfflH-(D0)O0)P>OH-H-(U3^

l

^H-OI-'P-H-0)( D 1 •< 

3 

O 

> (0 rt 

fl) 

H 

CO 

W 

< 

3 01 

o 

o 

a 

n> 

fl) 

3 n> 

rt 3" 03 01 

fl) 

fl> 

fl> 

< 

3 

N H-

I1 a 

0) 

X D> 

O (0 

o 

c oi rt a> •O cn 

o 

3 

CD 

o 

< 

o 

c 

(fl 

o 3" 0) >1 0. cn H- 0» 

3 

9 3 •< 

O 

H 0> 

3 

cf 

3 

fl> 

fl) 

3 (D ^< 

fl) ca 

d 

o 

fl> 0) 

3 rt 

O 

3 

0) 

3 • 3 0> ii p> 

3 rt 

O 

O 

o 

o (D 

O rt 

rt 

3 0) rt tr H- 0) 01 

n> 3* (D 

3 X 

O- fl) 0) 

O 3* 0) tJ 

d rt 

co 

fl> (D 

• i 

3 

O 

o 

d rt 

O 3* 

fl) 

3 

cr cr p« 

ro cn rt 0) 

O ** 3* 

O 

d cn n> 

• 3 

o 

a s : o> 

(-• rt 

O 

3 

W 

fl) 

3 

3 

fl) rt rt 

« 

3 vQ 

2! 0> 

3 (D 

w *d 

> 

§ 

tfl 

M • d 

> 

*-•«* . O • d 03 

M •d 

> 

•"-. ^ 

§ 

O 

os r 

•d t 

2 < E H- S* 0 1 rt 0* Chemica 

o 

X *< 

o 3* (D 

9 

D 

O 

« 

G 

3 H

-

o 3 Carbide 

o 5g 

P 

3 0* 

(-• 

M H

-

3 ckrodt* 

M • d 

> 

"^s . 01 

o 03 

O 

? 

3 

fl) 

1 

o * 

w 

X 

X 

o 3 Chemica 

w • d 

> 

• ^ 0) 

o 03 

M •d 

> 

•*-*. 0 1 

o 03 

td »d 

> 

*"*^ 01 

D 03 

M »d 

> 

***v 0 1 

o 03 

W • d 

> 

"**>. 55 01 

» 

M • d 

> 

""•N . 2! 0) td 

w *d 

> 

•**«*. 01 

o 03 

W • d 

> 

» 0> 

a H - 0) 

3 

O 

1 

Q 0> 

3 Hzatio - n 

> H ENDEE

H S 

> 

w 

t-3 

vo 

h-» vo O l * k 

l-» 

1 H» 

O 

<J\ to 

VO 

l-» VO U I 

.&. 

1 U I *» 

M 

O 

VO 

(-» VO Ol *. l - » 

1 U I U I 

*>. * k 

IO 

O ro 

•«j 09 UI 

1 

* > • 00 00 00 

to 

o to 00 00 -J 

1 

l-» 

h- 00 

<J\ 

t-< - 0 

l-» U) U I 00 00 OJ 

•ffc *. o\ 

~J 

ho\ to 00 

1 OJ H* 

o O) 

U I 

(-* - J o> OJ ON 

1 

to VO U I OJ 

to 

o OJ ^J VO 

•ft 

1 U I 

M 00 OJ 

to 

o to 00 00 

1 

h-» OJ 

l-« OJ 

OJ 

!-• 

*>. 00 vo UI 

1 

to «o VO OJ 

VO 

M vo U I J> 

1 U I to U I J> 

(O 

o to 00 00 

1 

H 

•-• 00 OJ 

vo 

o 00 OJ 

o to 

1 ^4 00 

t-- U l 

H • J H» OJ 00 >4 

O 

1 

o\ 

M U I 

»-• 

vo 

M vo UI 

J4. 

1 UI to 

o\ 

to 

VO 

h-» VO U I 

*>. 

t U I OJ 

M 

O 

VO 

M VO U I 

•t^ 

1 U I 

o\ 

to OJ 

vo 

l-» VO U I 

*>. l-« 

1 U I OJ U I 00 

VO 

H VO U I 

*>. 

1 

O 00 ^1 OJ 

VO 

I- 1 vo U I 

•ft 

H 

1 U I U I vo to 

VO 

(-• VO U I 

*>-

l-» 

1 U I to U I 00 

VO 

(-• VO U I 

^ 

»-• U I OJ 

t-» 

M 

VO 

M VO U I * • 

l-« 

1 VO H* 

O 

O 

I-* 

fl> 

M eph 

o 3 

fl) 55 

d 

3 ber 

P.7 
P.8 

ATTACHMENT 2. 

Agenda for CMA/EPA Meeting 

General Discussion on HON 

7/23/91 

12:30 to 5:00 pm 

11th Floor Conference Room 

1. Phase-In of MACT Standards for SOCMI subcategories 

- Response to and discussion of previous suggestions 

- NSR, construction etc. permit considerations 

- New options 

2. Questions on expected Test Methods and Procedures 

- Monitoring provisions 

- Concentration measurements for applicability and 

compliance determinations 

3. HON Applicability 

- How to determine if process is subject 

- Meaning of terms such as make, produce, product, etc. 

4. MACT Issues 

- Status of options development and decisions on standard 

- Discussion of draft options and impacts 

O Database 

O Computer models 

O Interpretation of tables 

O Potential errors and biases 

O Other questions 

- MACT Floors 

O Interpretation of existing regulations 

O Present status 

5. Wrap-up 
P.9 

ATTACHMENT 3 

POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES FOR HON COMPLIANCE 

(July 23, 1991) 

OPTION 1 

OPTION 2 

OPTION 3 

OPTION 4 

OPTION 5 

OPTION 6 

Separate Rulemakings or Applicability Dates 

Phase-In MACT for SOCMI by Phasing Applicability 

Criteria with Respect to Source Characteristics 

"Source-Wide" Bubble Phase-In 

Phase-In MACT for SOCMI by Phasing Applicability 

of the Five Generic Standards that will Comprise 

MACT for Production Processes 

Tying Permit Review to MACT Compliance 

Provide Minimum Criteria for Accepting Petitions 

Requesting One-Year Extensions 

MCH/016 
P.10 

ATTACHMENT 4 

r 

Subject to requirement to 

document there are no HAP's 

in the process. 
P.11 

ATTACHMENT 4. (Continued, 

2 

Example Illustration 

Process unit "xyz" produces chemical A and produces 2 coproducts B and C in an impure stream that is further 

processed to produce "pure" chemicals B and C. 

Product A is not a HAP and the unit feedstocks do not 

include HAP's. 

Coproducts B and C are HAP's. 

(1) Which operations are SOCMI units subject to HON? 

B and C 

(2) At what point in the unit A, B, and C equipment trains 

are the operations subject? 

Where create B and C and the HAP concentration is above 

some specified minimum concentration. 

It is yet to be decided what these levels would be 
ATTACHMENT 5 

TAHI F 1. RANGL.QLlMEAQS-EQIi im'LV j VLNjb LX1SJ1NU SOUKCLS 

EMISSIONS 1MPAUS. 

Oplio n 

I IC 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Baseline 

JifiisSIUII (Mu/vi 1 

HAP 

6.874 

6.584 

7.993 

9.554 

13.304 

20.332 

80.262 

VOC 

20.811 

22.93b 

24.9H'.I 

30.515 

44.916 

79./I / 

238.880 

Incremental (mission 

MAP 

/09 

1.410 

1 . 'jbO 

3./5b 

7.023 

59.930 

— 

voi: 

2.12*. 

2.063 

',. VI . 

14.401 

J4.U01 

16'J.lbJ 

In. i i-nu-iit .i 1 Vi-nl :. 

lunLiul ILXI 

1),, ,1.1 1 1 y 

."I' l 

12 

' il 

I'.O 

/'I 

III 

1.21. / ( I ..I ) 

liiilliil.i t 1 ve (Z ) 

1(10 

1,0 5 

'.n 1. 

M l / 

21, '.) 

14 4 

Pen.co l IIIIIS- , 

UXL I tlas. 

MAC 

92 / 

91 tl 

'ID 0 

bti 1 

111 4 

/ 4 / 

II.I I 1 mi l i ,,l li. l 

dltllUl l 

VOI 

91 i 

'JO 4 

i n '. 

H/ 2 

tn 2 

1,1, 1, 

COST IMPACIS 

Opl IUI I 

IIC 

5 

4 

3 

2 

) 

Baseline 

lotdl 

Annual Cost 

(Sl.OOO/yr) 

US.004 

69.693 

52.449 

44.160 

34.282 

2/.850 

— 

0 

Opt ion 

I IC 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Basel me 

Energy 

(HHtitu) 

-

_. 

— 

-

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

($1.000/yr) 

15.311 

15.244 

8.289 

9.878 

6.432 

. — 

— 

Average 

HAP 

1 143 

946 

.726 

b2S 

512 

466 

— 

Cost 

lii,imu/ii-ii 

VOL 

.190 

32J 

245 

212 

17/ 

1/5 

rHFR IMPACTS 

NO Emission:. 

(Mg/yr) 

3.0/ 6 

3.015 

2.220 

1.861 

1.844 

1.791 

CO (missions 

(Mg/y. ) 

93 

93 

54 

42 

41 

40 

. .. 

A, lui l V, 1,1 ( o-. 

ILUliiL-Llj 

l!AL' 

IM 1 1, . '.I.I . Ul.'l 

1. •. . l u I5.U6 5 

U M 1., I',.!!',' , 

1) 1 '. t o l').l»6 5 

111) I D 1.41,4 

III ! 1 u 2'l' l 

ll|. l u.n 

1 l( 

'. 

4 

1 

,' 

1 

1 1 1 In t I venes s 

1)1111 'M.i 1 

VUL 

0112 to 6bl .869 

1)112 to 1 .306 

(102 lo 1.306 

002 to 1.305 

002 to 2H5 

002 t o 64 

1 ni l I'll,ni l ,i I lip. I 

1 1 1 U. 1 1 VL-OLJi Hl.UUU.Hli l 

li/U' VUL . . 

21 696 

io bl I 

'. 111 

2 t, 11 

9 It . 

-

/ 20', 

/ 425 

1 ', 

I.m. 

1116 

Al'l'l K.AHII 11Y CHI I I RIA 

1 1 i.Wf .) 1 C 

(selin ) 

0 

4 b / 

4 L4 

"J 1 

•il) '. 

•I'.O 

lle.it 

I mi l t-n I 

IHtu/scf) 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

. 

MAI' ( miipip. i 1 i oo 

("I /-I 

0 

0 

».". 

U'. 

IJ*. 

II' . 

p 
Opt ion 

ATTACHMENT 5. (Continued) 

TABLE 2. REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR I'KOLl SS VI NIS NLW SOURCES 

Opt ion 

I I C 

1 loor 

Baseline 

(missio n (Hu/vr) 

HAP 

1.116 

1.250 

15.250 

VOC 

3.954 

4.358 

45.38 / 

EMISSIONS IMI'MIS 

Incremental Emission 

Heii.ir.tion IMO/VI 1 

HAP 

135 

13.999 

VOC 

404 

41.029 

h 

On II 1 1 1 

• 1 / 

/ i 

i l t,m-lil ,i 1 Vill i :. 

Cunt m l Icil 

i v ( IIIIIIII .it I ve 

100 

l.l) ', 

U) 

Percent Imissio n ( i.nl i ol 1 eil 

Over H.1S :l 1 lie ('/1 

MAP 

92 / 

91 1) 

VOC 

'JI J 

'JO 4 

Total 

Annual Cost 

($1.000/yr) 

-£0.S.LlMP_ALlt) 

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

($1.000/yr) 

Average Cost 

Effectiveness 111 001I/H..I 

J1A£_ VOC 

Ai I o i I Viii l (os t I I lei. I I veness Kanye 

lll.WJU/rlu) 

MAP VOC 

I in i emeu I a I I ip. I 

MAP 

( i l POP/hi)) 

I I C 

F loor 

Baseline 

Opt ion 

IIC 

Floor 

Baseline 

16.150 

13.242 

2.908 I 143 

0 946 

0 390 

0 32 1 

0 (,. t n IOb./66 

O OOi. l o 3 012 

0 0004 to I0t) /55 

0 0004 lo 24B 

21 695 / 206 

M& 

Energy (MHBtu) 

R IMPACTS 

NO Emissions 

(Hg/yr) 

684 

573 

CO I im ssio n 

(My/yi ) 

111 

1 / 

APPI ICABII NT 1 HI II HI A | 

(Jo I i on 

IIC 

1 loui 

Basel I lie 

1 lowrale 

0 

4.62 

0 

Me.it 

I oil lei it 

-llUl^iLl l 

0 

1 

0 

MAP 

( onions 1 1 1 oo 1 

_. (»i ti. - 1 

0 

0 

0 
ATTACHMENT 5. (Continued) 

TABLE 3. REGULAIORY OPTIONS IOR PKOU SS VINIS i XISiING SOURCLS 

EMISSIONS IMPACIS 

Option 

IIC 

1 loor 

Baseline 

Emission (Hu/vr) 

HAP 

5.874 

6.584 

80.262 

VOC 

20.811 

22.936 

236.860 

Incremental Emission 

Hl'dUCllO." 'HU/V I 1 

HAP 

709 

73.6/8 

VOC 

2.126 

2I6.-J44 

1 in. i pint-nt .11 Vent:. 

Colli I ol le d 

I),,.ml 1 1 y 

249 

111,' 

Ciiiiiiilal 1 ve 1%) 

100 

1,0 6 

Percent linissio n ((ml i o l led 

Ovel Baselin e IX) 

MAP 

9? / 

91 B 

VIII 

91 3 

90 4 

COST IMPACIS 

Opt ion 

I IC 

(loo r 

Base)ine 

lota l 

Annual Cost 

($l000/yr) 

85.004 

69.693 

Incremental 

Annua 1 Cos t 

($1000/yr) 

15.311 

Average Cost 

f 1feetivenes s 

(flDOO/Mul 

MAP 

1 143 

.946 

VOC 

390 

323 

A. 1.1,1 V. Ill l.p.l I I l. i 1 1 v, in-;,'. Haillje 

(Hll00/M.|) 

MAP 

011 I n 61,1 .111,9 

0 1 1 l o 15.1155 

VIM 

002 t o 561.869 

002 to 1.305 

1 III. 1 Cllll'llt .1 1 ( IP. 1 

1 I te d ivenes s (HU00/M.| ) 

MAP 

21 596 

VIII 

/ 20 6 

o 

2 3 

Opt ion 

I I C 

I loor 

Baseline 

J_Itt ER IMPACTS 

Energy (HHBtu) HO, Emissions 

(Hg/yr) 

3.0/6 

3.016 

CO (mission 

(Hg/yi ) 

95 

9 1 

Opt ion 

IIC 

1 I....I 

Base l i m 

APPI 1CABII 11 T CHIIIHIA 

1luwrate 

(sclm) 

0 

4 b2 

] 

Heat 

( o n I en I 

_ifil"i5kll 

0 

1 

MAP 

1 OIIIDOSI 1 loll 

-_..I_l._l._. . 

0 

0 

-... _ __. 
Opt ion 

6 

4 

3 

2 

1 

J--1 lflATTACHMENT 5. (Continued) 

TABIE 4. RANGE OF IMPACTS FOR 1RANSLLK UI'LKAIIUN- _-L_l.U___.QUR_l.-_ 

__M_1____UML>AL1_ 

Emissions (Hg/yr) 

HAP 

372.03 

406 83 

430 68 

473.92 

495.23 

• H.13 

VOC 

3/2 03 

406 63 

430 66 

473 92 

495.23 

-H.19 

Inc i einental (missio n 

Heiloction (Hg/yi ) 

HAP 

34 80 

23 85 

43 24 

21 30 

16 96 

VOC 

34 B0 

• 2i 116 

43 24 

21 30 

18 96 

In. i . in.'i.I .i I H.H 1 : 

I i,nl i ol led 

l)„ ,1,1 i I v 

I I . 

/ 

I IIIIIIII.II Ive (/. | 

/ 4 

4 I, 

1 1 

I 2 

0 4 

Pel i.cut I mi -..-. I oo 

Control led liver 

MAP 

27.66 

•20 Bb 

lb 24 

7 83 

3 69 

2/ 1,6 

20 till 

I I , 24 

/' b l 

3 1,9 

Opt ion 

XQSIJMPA.llota l 

Annual Cost 

(J1.000/yr) 

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

(Jl.OOO/yr) 

Average Cost 

I tli-i-l i veness (t l 111HI/H..I 

JJ___ YQ1 

.1 n.,1 (o. i 

...J_I_J__L _ 

11 i i 

IIAI' VUL 

I lit. l eillenl .i I t IP.1 

._J__1_.I-LIU... H _Lii_U_U/_u l 

IIAI'. VUL 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Baseline 

5.844 

3.836 

2.766 

1.221 

420 

JW../Q. 

2.008 

1.070 

1.545 

801 

420 

41 10 

35.72 

33.12 

30.32 

22.15 

41 10 

36/ 2 

33 12 

30 32 

Tl 16 

19 lo 1,62 

19 lo bl 

19 lo 4b 

19 to 4b 

19 to 2b 

19 to 662 

19 lo bl 

19 lo 4b 

19 to 48 

19 to 26 

6/ /0 

44 B4 

36 /2 

3/ 6B 

22 16 

5/ /0 

44 B4 

36 /2 

3/ 68 

l i 15 

Option 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Baseline 

i l l 

Energy (MMBtu) 

1.279 

1.039 

843 

565 

88 

HER IMPACTS 

NO. Emissions (Hg/yr) 

0 542 

0.441 

0 398 

0 293 

0 045 

CO (missions (M.|/yi ) 

(I 01)1.4 

(I Utl 111 

0 on in 

0 OU I 1 

0 000B 

APPI ICABII I I Y (KIIIHI A 

Opt Ion 

4 

3 

2 

I 

I I'" " 

Vapor Pies sin e 

Inifl It'l l 

12 

16 

16 

15 

lb 

Act o.i I I In ooqhput 

lrlrl_j|Z_r J 

6 B 

b 1 

9 / 

19 5 

JO 

Si 
Opt ion 

.ATTACHMENT 5. (Continued) 

TABIE 5. REGULATORY QPT_j_tJ_L±Dli_J t__M_l LU U_LI__llQN_,__i______l_ILL 

Emissions iHo/vrl 

HAP VOC 

EMISSIONS 1MPACIS 

Incremental Emission 

Rrrtluctinu iMu/yi ) 

HAP VOC 

I hi i eiiient al Hacks 

LullLllll IUll 

Ijn.ilil I t y Coiiiiilal I ve (%) 

Percent luiission Controlled 

Over Baseline (tl 

HAP VOC 

IIC 

I loor 

B J AIIII30 45 

41.58 

30 45 

41 58 

3/./Q 

II 13 

66 12 

lilt 

51, 12 

19 100 

1,1 

6B B3 

5/ 44 

btl B3 

6/ 44 

Option 

TIC 

> loor 

.Baseline 

COST .MEALIS 

Total 

Annual Cost 

(11000/yr) 

6.891 

4.311 

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

(SlOOO/yr) 

2.580 

4.311 

Average Cost 

Effectiveness (11000/Hu) 

JJAE_ 

102 48 

/6 83 

_¥___ 

102.48 

/ 6 83 

Ail n.11 K.n.k Cost I I lei I iveness 

K-iiut: 1-lUUQ/MuJ 

l__ . . . 

4 In 264.I b 5 

4 l o b/.I 10 

__Ul _ 

4 to 264.1B6 

4 lo b/,13 0 

I I II I Lllll 111 .1 I CllS t 

L Mee t I veness (IIOOO/Hu) 

._/_.'_ 

231 /B 

103 bb 

ML. 

211 /B 

103 bB 

o 

3 

Opt ion 

IIC 

Floor 

Baseline 

jm 

Energy (MHBtu) 

1.517 

9 0 6 

R IMPACTS 

NO. Emissions 

(Mg/yr) 

0 245 

0 155 

CO (mission'. 

(Mg/yi) 

0 0064 

0 002B 

Oplinn 

IIC 

t loor 

._!__; lm_. 

APPl ICABII I IY (RllfRIA 

Vapor 

Pressure 

- 1"»1 H«ll_ 

0 

25 

Ait oa I 

lln npnt 

lHHQa|/Y.|') 

N/A 

N/A 

Man IIIIIIMI 

Thruput 

• l-i-i-li-Ll. 

0 

0 .10 

Tl 
ATTACHMENT 5. (Continued) 

TABIE 6. REGUIATORY OPTIONS FOR TRANSLLILUIIKAI lQNS___L_lHili(L-SQUJ_-LSOption 

EMISSIONS IMPACTS 

Emissions (Ho/vr l 

HAP VOC 

Incremental Emission 

Rnilu.tiuu (Hu/yrl — 

HAP VOC 

I ni. i emental Hacks 

, Luu Liu 11 

I),..ml l I y ( omul at Ive [%) 

Percent linission (ont m l led 

->-l _d-t;l Hit: 111 

MAP Vill 

IIC 

F loor 

Baseline 

160 26 

218 85 

-M l_ 

160 26 

218 85 

5M.1-

68 59 

218 85 

5B 59 

218 85 

26tt 

10b 

iUi100 

63 

b6 83 

5/ 44 

bB Bl 

6/ 44 

J_Q_J_1_|_ACIS 

Option 

Total 

Annual Cost 

(SlOOO/yr) 

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

(SlOOO/yr) 

Average Cost 

-ffealMenes? lllQuli/rlul 

__AE_ _____ 

Actual Hack Cost I I te d i veness 

Hanue muOO/Hu ) 

.MIL JU__ 

lncitnitiil.i l ('ost 

E I III1 1 veness lll()QQ/Hul 

JJA H „.VUt. 

TIC 

Floor 

Baseline 

36.270 

22.690 

13.580 

22.690 

102 48 

76 83 

102.48 

/b.83 

19 to 1.337.813 

19 l u 363.319 

19 tu 1.337.813 

19 lo 353.319 

231 /8 

103 t a 

231 /B 

101 bB 

Option 

TIC 

Floor 

B-seline 

m 

Energy (HHBtu) 

7.984 

4.766 

•»

 IMPArT S 

NO. Emissions 

(Mg/yr) 

I 288 

0 817 

CO Emissions 

(Hg/yi ) 

0 02116 

0 0149 

APPI1CABK 11Y CRITERIA 

Ql'tll"! 

IIC 

I loor 

._ai_lill__ 

Vapor 

Pressure 

Iffin Hql__ 

0 

25 

Ham mum 

Thruput 

IfflM/yxJ 

0 

0 30 

Tl 
ATTAHMENT 5. (Continued) 

I ABIE J. DISIRIBUIKM Of IMPACIS i l NOOEl IANK SUE EON HAIOGEHAIED ANO SKCIAll l CH1MICAIS IN LXISI IMG I ANUS 

•••••••(•tltEf IIS«tII>U«ll*l>l>»*** k > l

,IE>lca>a *( I -: i "::t : - £ 1 .;ca«£ : 

Option 

lank 

Sitt 

(0*1) 

lotal Average 

Total HAP/VOC Percent Percent total Cost 

Vapor HAP/VOC Eaisaion Control Over Neater Control Over Annual Effectiveness 

Preeaure Eaiaaiona Reduction Baseline of Tanks Baseline Cost tor HAPS 

(pala) (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) (Eaiaaiona) Controlled (Tanks) (July '09 t/yi) (July '89 t/Hg HAP) 

Option 2 10,000 25 1J7.52 58.68 

20.000 1.5 38.08 258.51 

40.000 0.5 55.95 419.52 

200.000 0.2 95.7* 255.49 

1.000.000 0.1 259.54 1337.34 

2,000.000 0.1 247.44 J15.5J 

Option 2 Totals 054.01 2045.27 

29.9U 

87.0U 

91.72X 

72.151 

03.751 

55.451 

77.02X 

19 

117 

211 

210 

252 

1U 

955 

7./2X 

66.10X 

86.59X 

78.95X 

9).)1X 

IOO.OOX 

70.7VX 

950.800 

6.168.609 

11,167.862 

7,504.167 

7.094. HO 

J.575.245 

16.669,09} 

16.M0 

2},862 

18.149 

29,149 

5,105 

10.655 

12.TVS 

IA81E 0. OISIBIBUIION Of IMPACTS 8« NQ0CL TANK SIZE TOR HONHAUK-EHAIE0 AHO NONSPECIAIIY CHEMICALS IH EXISIING IANKS 

Option 

Tank 

Silt 

(gai) 

10.000 

20.000 

40.000 

200.000 

1.000.000 

2,000,000 

Vapor 

Preaaure 

(paia) 

0.50 

0.50 

0.10 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

Total 

HAP/VOC 

Eaiaaiona 

<*o/yr) 

11.91 

42.45 

100.54 

215.40 

194.86 

292.80 

Total 

HAP/VOC 

Caiaaion 

•eduction 

(NB/yD 

149.14 

124.71 

551.59 

1507.JO 

2057.55 

2574.52 

Percent 

Control Ovar 

•aaaline 

(Eaiaaiona) 

92.19X 

74.6U 

8J.56X 

87.501 

91.35X 

89.79X 

Ktafeer 

of Tanks 

Controlled 

98 

114 

482 

910 

558 

4)9 

Percent 

Control Over 

Baseline 

(Tanks) 

60.871 

61.J1X 

9J.41X 

100.OOX 

100.00X 

100.OOX 

lotal 

Annual 

Cost 

(July '89 S/yr) 

1.495.148 

25.417 

108.750 

1.125.778 

2.020.824 

2.961,874 

Average 

Cost 

Effectiveness 

for HAPS 

Option 2 

Option 2 Totals 847.98 4984.79 88.95X 2601 94.10X 9.955,791 

20.664 

204 

560 

746 

982 

1.150 

1.422 

TJ 
ATTACHMENT 5. (Continued) 

TA^ F ft. RFGUIATORY OPTIONS FOR STORAGE OF IIAIOGENATFO COMPOUNDS - NFW SOURCES, 

.IMISS1QMS-IM 

Option 

2 

1 

Floor 

Baseline 

(missions (Mo/vr> 

ML 

162 

162 

174 

JUL. 

_____ 

162 

162 

1/4 

JUL 

Incremental Emission 

•.eduction (Mo/vrl 

_UA£_ 

0 

11 

b33 

VOC 

0 

I I 

633 

'fit IS 

Incremental tanks 

-.Ullll-llt-l 

_UuJlltll__ 

0 

I 

l/l l 

Z'ACuinuldUs_-iXL 

/l 

/I 

/0 

Percent Imission Controlled 

Over Baseline (Il 

JIAIL 

// 

// 

lb 

J.0L 

// 

// 

/b 

COST IMPACTS 

Option 

2 

1 

Floor 

Baseline 

Total 

Annual Cost 

(J1.000/yr) 

6.970 

6.9/0 

6.780 

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

(Sl.OOO/yr) 

0 

182 

6.780 

Average Cost Effectiveness 

UiUaJ 

itflp 

12.600 

12.600 

12.700 

-VOL. 

12.H00 

12.800 

12./00 

Average Cust t f (eel iveness Range 

( i l OQQ/Hyil 

IIAI. _ _ 

!> J tu 29 3 

S 3 to 29 3 

0 to 29 3 

_W__ 

b 3 to 29.3 

b.3 to 29.3 

0 to 29.3 

incremental tost 

JJ_j_a_ltf_J____J__uJ 

IIAP 

0 

lb.300 

12./0 0 

Option 

2 

I 

Floor 

Basellini e 

Enerov (HWh) 

5.500 

5.500 

5.290 

OTHER IMPACTS 

NO Emissions (Mo/vrl CO tmisaj_ui_.J_!i-_c_-. 

" These represent the range of average cost effectiveness for each tank sure, not a true range o( minimum and maximum values 

. VUL__ 

o 

lb.300 

12./00 

O 

3 

TJ 

CO 
ATTACHMENT 5. (Continued) 

TARIF 10. RFGUIATORY OPXLQMS-JXlfi-SJQRAGE QI HONIIALUGLNAlLU-LUMlflL _MLM JflUBLLS _ 

JMISSIQMS-JMQACIS 

Opt ion 

(missions (Ma/vrl 

HAP ____ 

Incrementd) Emission 

Reduction (Ha/vi ) ' 

-UAiL __UL_ 

I in. i iimnt a I lank-. 

Lmilrulk.. 

UujnllL y -.L_iw_la.lv.; ill . 

Percent (missiun tout nil It 

Ui-txJ___l4ii___lJ 

.UM. yui.. 

3 

2 

I 

Floor 

Baseline 

165 

189 

904 

904 

l.«90 

16b 

169 

904 

904 

1.190 

24 

/lb 

0 

bB8 

24 

/lb 

0 

bbtt 

'.II 

I n/ 

219 

94 

H.I 

4/ 

4/ 

ug 

8/ 

39 

39 

tri 

ui 

39 

39 

Opt ion 

3 

2 

1 

Floor 

Baseline 

Total 

Annual Cost 

(Sl.OOO/yr) 

1.210 

8b2 

142 

142 

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

($1.000/yr) 

362 

994 

0 

-142 

COST IMPACTS 

Average Cost Effectiveness 

UZMflJ 

_u_e_ 

915 

6b3 

241 

241 

__Q£_ 

91b 

bb3 

-241 

-241 

Avel .IIjt Cos! I I le d i veness Hange 

UOMZlkJ 

IIAIL 

0 Ui to 20 / 

I) I. in 14 b 

I 4 to 14 b 

I 4 tu 14 b 

_UL_ 

•0 03 tu 20 / 

0 b lo 14 b 

I 4 to 14 6 

I 4 to 14 6 

Incremental fust 

LlleLtiveness (1/Mul 

-MIL 

lb.300 

I . 390 

0 

241 

Oat ion 

3 

2 

i 

Floor 

Baseline 

Energy (HWh} 

QTHFR IMPACTS 

HO. [missions iHq/yrL CO [miss line, (Hn/yi I 

'These represent the range of average cost effectiveness for each tank si/e. nut a line range ol minimum and ma.imuiii values 

_V0t. 

lb.300 

I , 190 

0 

241 

o 

3 

T3 

ro 
TABLE 11 

ATTACHMENT 5. (Continued) 

REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR STORAGE OF IIAIOGlNAIll) COMPOUNDS EXISTING SOUHCLS 

I 

Opt ion 

2 

1 

(loor 2 

Floor 1 

Baseline 

Emissions (Hg/yr) 

HAP 

8S5 

855 

1.080 

1.080 

../.. 

VOC 

Bbb 

8bb 

1.080 

1.080 

..n. 

Option 

2 

1 

Floor 2 

Floor 1 

Basel int. 

lota ) 

Annual Cost 

($1.000/yr) 

36.700 

36.700 

30.100 

30.100 

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

(Sl.OOO/yr) 

0 

6.570 

0 

30.100 

FMISSIONS IMPAtIS . . 

Incremental (missio n 

Reduction (Hg/yi) 

MAP 

0 

in 

0 

2.640 

VOC 

(1 

2.Y 

11 

2.t>4() 

Im i eiiient a 1 lank'. 

1 out i ul lt d 

IJu.lnl 1 1 y 

0 

l.'-l 

I) 

Mi l 

.-.l.J-tt .... -

I i ii in 11 .il i ve (X) 

/ I 

/ I 

!"" 

1.2 

Peii.cnt (in I , -. 11 >i i 

Controlle d Over baselin e 

m 

MAI' 

// 

// 

/ I 

/ I 

vui: 

n 

u 

/ i 

n 

COST IMPACTS 

Average Cost Effectiveness 

( 1 Hal 

HAP 

12.800 

12.800 

11.400 

11.400 

OTHER IMPACTS 

Option 

2 

1 

Floor 2 

floor 1 

Baseline 

fnerqv (HWh) 

29.000 

29.000 

19.700 

19.700 

HO. Emissions (Ma/vr 

0 

0 

0 

0 

VOC 

12.800 

12.800 

11.400 

11.400 

A vti .i. JI • lie. l 1 1 Ii i 1 i vine.,.. Kanye 

(11 OOO/M-ll 

. . ILII: 

b 1 In 29 i 

b i l o 29 J 

I) In 29 3 

U In 29 3 

l CO [mission-. |M.|/ Y ! 1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

VUL 

b 3 l u 29 3 

b 3 t u 29 3 

o' l o 29 3 

0 l u 29 3 

1 in l cinenl.i 1 1 u',t 

1 I I LI I ive ies., fi/Mu l 

llul' 

0 

'29./00 

0 

II.40 0 

VUL. . . 

0 

29./0 0 

0 

II,40 0 

o 

3 

"Ihese represent the range of average cost eflect iveness for each tank si/e. nm a iiue i anye ol mmi d nd inaAimum value:. 

T3 

ho 
ATTACHMENT 5. (Continued) 

TABIF 1?. RFGUIATORY OPTIONS FOR STORAGE OF NONIIAl UGLNAIII) COMPOUNDS - I XlSilM_____KLLS 

I EMISSIONS IM'ACIS 

1 Option 

2 

1 

Floor 3 

Floor 2 

Floor 1 

Baseline 

Emission (Mo/vrl 

HAP 

. 870 

890 

4.760 

4.860 

6.760 

7.850 

VOC 

870 

890 

4.760 

4.860 

6.760 

7.850 

Incremental Emission 

Reduction (Mo/vrl 

HAP 

22 

3.8/ 0 

106 

1.890 

1.100 

VOC 

22 

3.8/0 

106 

1.890 

1.100 

In. i iiiienla 1 lank:, 

Lout m l led 

._UUJIIIII I „ 

9) 

1 . 19/ 

I . / 

412 

11 12 

2./ M 

Lumul-iLiyt .1X1. 

94 

91 

4/ 

4 b 

10 

Percent (missio n Controlle d 

Over Basel ne (X. 

COST IMPACTS 

Option 

2 

D 1 

Floor 3 

Floor 2 

Floor 1 

Baseline 

Total 

Annual Cost 

($t.000/yr) 

9.940 

8.380 

-75 

2.080 

-121 

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

(Sl.OOO/yr) 

1.550 

8.460 

2.010 

-1.960 

121 

Average Cost Effectivenes s 

( I Mn. 

HAP 

1.420 

1.200 

24 

-696 

111 

VOC 

1.420 

1.200 

24 

-696 

111 

AVI I i.|. lu:.t 1 1 li . 1 l vein •.', kangc 

< i | ,000/Miil 

MAI" 

0 2 l u 20 / 

U 2 l u 14 ti 

1 2 t u 14 t, 

1 2 l o ti 0 

0 b t u 0 b 

OTHER IMPACTS 

Ootion 

2 

l 

Floor 3 

Floor 2 

Floor 1 

Baseline 

fnergy lHWhl 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

HO. Emissions (Mo/vrl 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

CQ lm\-.-.M\4 (Mj/yi:) . 

II 

U 

u 

n 

0 

VOC 

0 2 t o 20 / 

0 2 to 14 t> 

1 2 l o 14 6 

1 2 l u b 0 

0 b to 0 b 

MAP 

89 

tt'J 

39 

3b 

14 

VUL 

89 

89 

39 

3b 

14 

Inciementa l I'usl 

1 Ifi-i 1 iwei ess lt/M,i l 

HAP 

10.100 

2. 190 

18.900 

1.040 

111 

VOC 

/0.I0 0 

2.190 

lb.90 0 

1.040 

I I I 

5 3 

These represent the range of average cost effectiveness for each tank si/e . nut a tru e fange u l iniminimi and nia»imum value . 
TABLE 13. 

AIIALHMLNI b. (Continued) 

ILLUSTRATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS I OU WASUWAIIU LX1S1ING SOURCLS 

1 FMISSIONS IMI.ALIS .. .._ _ _ 

Opt ion 

6 TIC 

b 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Floor -- Baseline 

F'-tlS&IQn.S (Mu/vrl 

HAP 

15.629 

15.948 

18.237 

18.725 

28.922 

39.120 

l,.i.l 

VOC 

49.700 

50.715 

57.994 

59.546 

91.972 

124.402 

m,.K 

Incremental Emission 

Heiluct inn (Mu/vi 1 

MAP 

319 

2.289 

488 

10.197 

10.198 

35.737 

--

VOC 

1.01b 

/.2/ J 

1. bb2 

32.426 

32.430 

113.643 

IIII.I euiental blreain_. 

Cunt ni l led 

(Ju.nil 1 1 y 

942 

.\'l 

10b 

140 

192 

140 

Ciiimil.il I ve (X) 

b4 

13 

b 

a 

I I 

b 

Percent (missio n Cuntrolle d 

Over baselin e (I l 

COST IMPACTS 

Opt ion 

j 6 TIC 

1

 S 

1

 4 

1 3 

2 

1 

Floor -- Baseline 

Total 

Annual Cost 

($>000/yr) 

267.900 

182.600 

122.100 

116.600 

74.200 

21.500 

--

Incremental 

Annual Cost 

(SlOOO/yr) 

85.300 

60.500 

5.500 

42.400 

52.700 

21.500 

--

Average Cost 

Effectivenes s (11000/Hu) 

HAP 

4 523 

3.100 

2 157 

2 077 

1 615 

0.602 

--

VOC 

1 .422 

0.9/ b 

0 6/b 

0 6b3 

0 508 

0.189 

--

A. lu.i l 1 ai i 1 11 y f ij-.t 1 1 (ect iveness 

Hum ilipou/Mul 

MAI* 

I) 20//.000 . 000 

0 20/1.41.0 

0 19/1.030 

0 19/1.030 

0 19/1.000 

0 19/26 

VOC 

0 06/2.200.000 

0 0b/4b9 

0 06/324 

0 06/324 

0 00/324 

0.06/8 

--

WP 

/9 

/9 

/6 

75 

b l 

48 

--

VOC 

/9 

/9 

/6 

/b 

61 

4b 

Incremental Cost 

LI lc'LtlvLiiei,% lilOQO/Mu) 

HAP 

2 b/ 0 

2b 4 

11 2 

4 1 

b 1 

0 60 

VOC 

b4 0 

« 3 

3 b 

1 3 

1 b 

0 19 

! 

Option 

6 IIC 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Floor - Baseline 

OT 

Energy (HNBtu) 

4 89 x IO7 

2.25 x I0 7 

1.62 x 107 

1.32 x 107 

0.93 x 107 

0 39 x 107 

I f R IMPACTS 

NOx Emissions (Hg/yr) 

5.591 

2.572 

1.845 

1.510 

1.062 

447 

CO Emissions (Mij/yi ) 

/•)', 

I I I 

241, 

201 

142 

L0 

Opt ion 

b 

b 

4 

3 

2 

1 

. 1 llti-l . 

APPI.ICABIUI. 

Flowrat e 

(lun) 

IIC 

l 

i 

i 

5 

10 

CHIIERIA 

VHAP Concent ra t ion 

(uoniM) 

IIC 

100 

200 

bOO 

600 

1.000 

ro 

co