p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1875 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 48 ) ll-E-6 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:47AM

Sheet 48of 86

# A-90-1 9 ll-E-6 6 P. 2



### SUMMAR Y O E TELEPHONE CONFERENC E Date : Octobe r 19 , 199 2 Subject : Monitoring Attendees : Lydi a Wegman , Deput yDirecto r o f th e Offic e o f Ai r

Qualit yPlanning an d Standards , EP

A Bruc e Jordan , Directo r o f th e Emission s Standard s Division , EPA Daphn e McMurrer , Emission s Standard s Division , EP A Ja n Meyer , Emission s Standard s Division , EPA Ric h Biondi , Deput yDirecto r o f th e Stationary Sourc e Complianc e Division , EP A Mami e Miller , StationarySourc e Complianc e Division , EPA Scot t Throw , StationarySourc e Complianc e Division , EPA Jan e Engert , StationarySourc e Complianc e Division , EPA Charle s Garlow , Ai r Enforcemen t Division , EPA Richar d Sigman , Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Te d Cromwell , Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Kath yBailey , Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Annett e Stanley , Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Jo e Hovias , Unio n Carbid e Bria n Taranto , Exxo n Chemica l Chuc k Malloch , Monsant o John Dege , DuPon t Jac k McClure , Shel l Oi l Ric h Phelps , Eastma n Koda k
Attache d ar e thre e document s exchange d i n preparatio n fo r thi s meeting
. Th e firs t i s a not e faxe d fro m Daphn e McMurre r t o Jac k McClure , o f Shel l Oil , fo r hi mt o distribut e t o th e CM A representatives
. I n respons e t o thi s fax , CM Asen t EPAth e secon d attachment . Thi s documen t describe s CMA' s preferre d systemfo r HON complianc e wit h operating paramete r monitoring
. Th e thir d attachmen t i s a not e fro mTe d Cromwell , o f CMA , t o Daphn e McMurrer , o f EPA . Thi s not e include s CMA' s comment s o n a draf t preambl e discussio n regarding HO Nrecordkeeping
. Thes e attachment s wer e no t discusse d i n detail , bu t wer e referre d t o whe n CM Aha d question s concerning EPA' s inten t i n th e potentia l monitoring provision s fo r th e HON . Th e EPArepresentative s summarize d th e potentia l monitorin g provision s fo r th e HON . Th e draf t propose d HO Nrequire s continuou s monitorin g o f operating parameter s fo r contro l device s o n Grou p 1 emissio n point s an d emissio n point s i n emissio n averages . Eac h sourc e woul d establis h site-specifi c range s fo r th e monitore d parameter s through th e operatin g permi t o r Notificatio n o fP. 3

» . 

### Complianc e Status . Record s woul d b e kep t o f th e value s o f eac h

paramete r recorde d onc e ever y1 5 minutes
. I f value s ar e measure d mor e frequently , th e 15-minut e averag e mayb e recorde d instead o f eac h individua l reading
. Th e dail yaverag e valu e o f eac h monitore d paramete r woul d b e calculate d an

d recorded . Thi s woul d b e th e averag e ove r th e numbe r o f hour s o f operatio n i n a day(2 4 hour s i f operatio n i s continuous)
. I f th e dail yaverag e valu e o f a monitore d paramete r wer e outsid e th e site-specifi c establishe d range , th e excursio n woul d b e reported . Ther e woul d b e betwee n 3 an d 6 excuse d excursion s ( 3 t o 6 days ) fo r eac h 6-mont h reporting period
. Excuse d excursion s woul d no t b e considere d violations , bu t additiona l excursion s woul d be . Th e EPAi s considering proposin g th e rang e o f 3 t o 6 day s fo r comment , an d selecting a fina l numbe r a t promulgation
. ACM Arepresentativ e suggeste d tha t th e EPAconside r allowing th e sourc e t o defin e th e star t o f th e operating dayi n thei r permit , instead o f reguiring dail yaverage s t o b e calculate d fo r th e perio d frommidnigh t t o midnight
. Th e CMA' s suggeste d approac h woul d allo wth e operating dayt o coincid e wit h th e plant' s shif t schedules . ACM Arepresentativ e aske d whethe r th e operato r woul d nee d t o calculat e every24-hou r average . H e pointe d ou t tha t i n case s wher e all , o r th e grea t majority , o f th e recorde d value s ar e withi n th e establishe d range , an operato r woul d kno wtha t th e dail y averag e wa s withi n th e rang e withou t incurring th e burde n o f doin g a mathematica l calculation
. Th e SD B suggeste d tha t i f every recorde d valu e i n a n operating dayi s withi n th e range , EPAcoul d conside r allowin g operator s t o mak e a notatio n t o tha t effec t i n th e lo g (an

d kee p th e 15-minut e records) , instead o f calculating th e dail yaverage . Th e CM Anote d tha t sometime s tw o o r thre e parameter s mayb e monitore d fo r th e same contro l device
. Asingl e technica l problem coul d caus e al l o f th e parameter s t o g o outsid e thei r ranges . Woul d thi s situatio n b e considere d a s on e excursio n o r multipl e excursions ? Th e SSC D responde d tha t i t woul d coun t a s on e excursio n pe r daype r contro l device
. Th e CM Arequeste d tha t EPAinclud e a tabl e o f exampl e range s fo r monitore d parameter s i n th e preamble . Th e SD B representative s indicate d tha t th e range s include d i n th e Decembe r 199 1 draf t coul d b e use d a s examples , bu t tha t th e propose d regulatio n woul d requir e source s and thei r regulatoryauthoritie s t o establis h site-specifi c ranges . 3 Attachment sPA_



### FA X t o Jac k McClure , Shel l Oi l Fro mDaphn e McMurrer , EP A Oct . 8 , 199 2
Attache d i s a summar yo f th e complianc e system EP Aha s develope d fo r Subpar t G o f th e HON . I a msendin g thi s t o yo u a s requeste d b

yCM Aa t ou r meeting o n Octobe r 6 , 1992 . A t tha t meeting w e agree d that : 1 ) EP Awoul d sen

d a summar

yo f th e complianc e envisione d fo r th e HO Nt o yo u o n Octobe r 8 ; 2 ) CM A woul d revie wth e EPAsummary ; an d 3 ) someon e fromCM Awoul d cal l Lydi a Wegma n t o discus s th e nee d fo r futur e meetin g o r othe r nex t steps . I f yo u hav e guestion s abou t th e attache d summary , pleas e cal l m e a t (919 ) 541-0248 .P. 5

HON Complianc e an

dOperatin g Parameter s
HO Nrequirement s fo r excuse d excursions : 1 ) Wha t unit s o f tim e wil l b e use d t o defin e excuse d periods ?
o Fo r device s wit h a 3-hou r monitorin g requirement , excuse d excursion s woul d b e allocate d base d o n th e 3-hou r periods , o Fo r device s wit h a differen t monitorin g requirement , th e duratio n o f th e require d monitorin g woul d b e th e basi s fo r excursions
. 2 ) Ho wwil l th e excuse d period s b e allocated ?
o Bycontro l device
. 3 ) Ho wman yexcuse d excursion s wil l b e allowe d a s equatin g t o prope r operatio n an d maintenance ?
o Thre e range s wil l b e proposed . o Th e thre e set s o f range s ar e base d o n th e week s o f operatio n durin g th e semi-annua l period , o Th e followin g range s wil l b e proposed : Week s o f Operatio n Propose d Rang e o f Excuse d Excursion s 24-2 6 15-4 8 excuse d excursion s 

### 10-2 3 8-2 4 excuse d excursion s 1 - 9 4-1 2 excuse d excursion s o Th e lowe r en

d o f thes e range s i s base d o n EPA' s origina l ide a o f 1 % o f th e device' s operating time
. o Th e highe r en

d o f th e rang e i s base d o n CMA' s ide a o f 6 day s (24-hour periods)
. 4 ) Ther e i s a wor k practic e elemen t t o th e requirement
. Th e sourc e i s require d to :

recor d tha t th e excursion s occurred ; kee p record s o f anydiagnosti c an d correctiv e actions ; an d initiat e correctiv e actions , i f necessary , withi n 24-hour s o f th e firs t excursio n reading
. 5 ) Th e followin g canno t b e counte d a s excuse d excursions :

Event s i n th e Startup , Shutdow n & Malfunctio n Pla n Effort s t o by-pas s o f th e contro l devic e 6 ) EP Awil l tak e commen t o n th e ide a o f reducin g excuse d excursion s a s a devic e i s i n service
. Fo r example , 4 8 excursion s coul d b e excuse d fo r newl yinstalle d devices ; 3 3 fo r device s i n us e ove r a yea r bu t les s tha n 2 ; an d 1 5 fo r device s i n us e ove r 2 years .P. 6

. . i " ;• . ' . '

HO N COMPLIANC E AN

D OPERATINGPARAMETER S - EXCUSE D EXCURSION S 1 ) Ho w wil l excuse dperiod s b e defined ?

o Fo r device s requiring a 3 hou r average dmonitorin g parameter , excuse dexcursion s woul dbe baser ! o nthe 3 hou r average . A twenty-fou r hou r operatin g day woul db e divide dint o eigh t 3 hou r bloc k periods .
o Fo r device s wit hdifferen t averagin g periods , the duratio no f the require daverage dmonitorin g perio dwoul db e th e basi s for excuse dexcursions . 2 . Ho w ar e excuse dperiod s allocated ?
o B y contro l device .
o A contro l devic e ma y hav e a maximu

m o f on e excursio npe r 3 hou r average , regardles s o f the numbe r o f monitore dparameters . 3 . Ho w man y excursion s wil l b e allowe da s meeting prope r operatio n an dmaintenance ? CM A Optio n- Measure da s a % o f operatin g day s
a ) A deviatio nfro

m a 3 hou r average dmonitorin g requiremen t woul dcoun t a s on e excursio nday . U pt o eigh t deviation s o f the 3 hou r averag e inanoperatin g day woul dcoun t a s on e excursio nday . Every day a sourc e operate s count s a s on e operatin g day . Th e maximu m numbe r o f operatin g day s ina semiannua l perio di s 183 . b ) Th e excuse dexcursion s woul dbe equa l t o 3 % o f th e actua l operatin g days . I f a sourc e operate s ever y day o f a semiannua l period , th e maximu m numbe r o f excuse dexcursio n day s i s 6 . CM A Modificatio no f th e EPA Optio n- Measure da s a % o f 3 hou r tim e period s
a ) An y deviatio nfro

m a 3 hou r average dmonitorin g requiremen t woul dcoun t a s anexcursion . Th e numbe r o f 3 hou r bloc k averagin g period s woul db e thos e o f actua l operatio ni na semiannua l period . Th e maximu m numbe r o f 3 hou r bloc k average s ina semiannua l perio di s 1,464 . b ) Th e excuse dexcursion s woul dbe equa l t o 3 % o f th e actua l 3 hou r bloc k averagin g periods . I f a sourc e operate s ever y day o f a semiannua l period , th e maximu m numbe r o f excuse dexcursio n period s i s 44 . Th e 3 % excuse dexcursio nvalu e i s base donindustry operatin g experienc e o f th e type s o f upset s tha t cannormall y b e expecte dt o occur .



## _ UP. 7

4 . Wor k practic e element . Th e sourc e i s require d to :

- recor d tha t th e excursion s occurred ;

- kee p record s o f an ydiagnosti c and correctiv e actions ; and ,

- intitat e an

ynecessar ycorrectiv e action s withi n 2 4 hour s o f th e firs t excursio n reading
. 5 . Th e followin g canno t b e counte d a s excuse d excurions :

- Event s i n th e Startup , Shutdown , and Malfunctio n Plan .

- Effort s t o by-pas s th e contro l device
. 6 . EP Awil l tak e commen t o n th e ide a o f reducin g th e percentag e o f excuse d excursion s ove r tim e a s a devic e i s i n service
.^ •1 - f\ <TT . • P. 8 i

1 J

Octobe r 13 , 199 2 To : Daphn e McMurre r From : Te dCromwel l Th e followin g include s th e EP Alanguag e wit hsuggeste dchange s fro mCMA
. CM

Achange s ar e underline dan dar e I nbol dtype
.

HO NRecordkeepin g T o b e Inserte dInt o th e R& RSectio n Th e propose drul e require s source s t o kee p readil y accessibl e record s of

monitore dparameters
. Fo r thos e contro l device s tha t mus t b e monitore dcontinuously , record s whic h Includ e a t leas t on e monitore dvalu e fo r

ever y 1 5 minute s of operatio nar e considere d sufficient

. Thes e monitorin g record s mus t b e maintaine dfo r

5 years . Industr y source s hav e informe dEPAtha t som e existin g compute r controlle dprocesse s hav e monitorin g system s tha t onl y stor e dat atha t i s outsid e som e predetermine drang e of acceptabl e values
. Fo r example , thes e system s coul d b e (are ) se tt o recor d an d stor e al l monitore d value s outsid e arang e suc h a s •*• - 1% . If amonitore d valu e di d no texcee d th e specifie d range , n o valu e woul d b e stored . Whe nth e valu e exceede d th e range , avalu e woul d b e stored . I tI s the ndeeme d tha tal l dat ai nbetwee nth e store d value s I s th e sam e a s th e las t recorde d value . Thi s system s coul d als o b e use d t o recor d thos e period s whe namonitore d paramete rmay b e outsid e th e paramete rrange s establishe d b y th e sourc e t o represen tprope roperatio no f acontro l device . Keepin gonl y thes e record s woul d dramaticall y reduc e th e dat a storag e requirements . Industr y source s hav e als o informe d EP A tha tman y existin g proces s contro l compute rsystem s obtai nmonitorin gdat amuc h more frequentl y tha never y 1 5 minutes , bu tar e no tdesigne d t o maintai na recor d o f

suc h dat afo rfiv e years . Suc h system s us e thi s extensiv e monitorin gdat at o calculat e averag e paramete rvalue s fo rth e complianc e perio d fo rth e emissio nsourc e (e.g . 3 hou raverage) . Th e Individua l dat apoint s coul d b e kep tI n a naccessibl e recor d fo ra perio d of

severa l day s s o tha tth e averagin gprocedur e coul d b e verified , an d the ncoul d b e "writte nover " t o conserv e compute rtim e an d memor y storag e space . Th e averag e fo rth e 3-hou rcomplianc e perio d woul d b e retaine d i na naccessibl e recor d fo r5 years . EP A reques t comment s o nwhethe rsuc h asyste m woul d satisfy record s retentio n requirement s an d provid e a nadequat e basi s fo rcomplianc e demonstratio n• A t thi s time , EPAdoe s no t hav e sufficien t

dat aabou t

thes e system s t o ensur e tha t the y reliabl y reflec t th e source' s continue d compliance
. Therefore , EPAha s no t include dthe ma s arecordkeepin g optio ni nth e propose drule
. Instead , EP Ai s seekin g commen t o n whethe r an dho w thes e system s shoul db e allowe dfo r complianc e wit hth eP. 9

recordkeepin g requirement s i nth e HON
. Specifically , EP Ai s intereste d in : wha t criteri aar e use dt o determin e th e value s tha t ar e store db y thes e existin g monitorin g systems ; ho w th e validit y of th e dat ai s verified ; th e frequenc y of calibratio nfo r

thi s typ e of

system ; ho w operator s ensur e th e accurac y of th e result s fro mthes e existin g systems ; an dwha t

type s of

processe s o r

control s ar e currentl y bein g monitore dwit hthes e systems
. I naddition , EPAi s seekin g commen t o n ho w th e requirement s allowin g th e use dof thes e system s t o compl y wit h th e HO Nmigh t b e structured
. Finally , EP Ai s seekin g commen t o nth e concep t of determinin g complianc e base do ndat atha t d o no t Includ e value s t o represen t

th e entir e complianc e perio d(i.e
. absenc e o f dat a indicatin g aviolatio nwoul dconstitut e evidenc e of compliance. )