p.1 

OAR Box 1875 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

37) ll-E-55 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/1/200811:12:46 AM Sheet 37 of 86 
P.2 

. x%%X^ '">'-, A-90-19 

w'' t \»< * ;' '• ""E"

55 

•.W'l ^ ^^Or'\ \ MEETING SUMMARY 

DATEr'EV'ji^^ August 25, 1992 

SUBJECT: Teleconference to Discuss Process Vents Issues 

ATTENDEES: Les Evans, EPA/CPB 

Linda Herring, EPA/SDB 

Sheila Milliken, EPA/SDB 

Debbie Stackhouse, EPA/SDB 

Ruth Mead, Radian 

Annette Stanley, CMA (telephone link) 

David Gustafson, Dow Chemical (telephone link) 

Joe Woolbert, Eastman Chemical (telephone link) 

The purpose of the teleconference between the EPA and CMA 

was to discuss resolution of the two process vent issues listed 

in the agenda (Attachment 1). 

Regarding the first issue, Sheila Milliken stated that the 

EPA staff plans to recommend proposing a TRE "X" value of 4. If 

the TRE index value of a vent stream is higher than 4.0, 

engineering assessment (rather than testing) could be used to 

determine the TRE, and operating parameter monitoring would not 

be required. The reasons for selecting a value of 4.0 are 

summarized on the agenda (see Attachment 1). The CMA 

representatives indicated agreement with a value of 4. 

The draft wording on the use of engineering assessment to 

determine TRE was discussed, and minor clarifications were added 

by those present. Attachment 1 shows the wording, with revisions 

marked. . A CMA representative asked if the use of computer 

simulation models is acceptable. The EPA responded that if the 

model is based on accepted chemical engineering principles, it 

would be allowed under paragraph (1)(iii)(D) of the attachment. 

However, the EPA representatives did not want to add language to 

the paragraph specifically allowing the use of models because, 

while some models are acceptable, others may be unsound. It will 

depend on the technical basis of the model. A brief discussion 

MCH/076 

telecon.mtg 
P.3 

on the use of models for engineering assessment may be added to 

guidance materials or the preamble. 

Ms. Milliken closed the meeting by stating that a typed 

version of changes to the process vents portion of the hazardous 

organics NESHAP (HON) regulation will be mailed to CMA on 

August 31, 1992. The CMA asked if they would have an opportunity 

to comment. The EPA representatives said that CMA could comment 

but, because of schedule constraints, the EPA will need to judge 

the significance of any comments and determine whether they will 

be addressed before or after proposal. 

MCH/076 

telecon.ntg 
P.4 

ATTACHMENT 1 
P.5 

AGENDA 

CONFERENCE CALL 

CMA/EPA 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1992 

2-3 P.M. 

I. Issues: Will propose the following for comment after 

proposal 

TRE "x" value issue: 

• EPA will propose a value of 4. This is based on the 

following: 

• CMA analysis proposing "x" value of 3 was 

reasonable, but based solely on "engineering 

judgement". EPA originally used "engineering 

judgement" to come up with 8. 

• "x" value of 4 will take into consideration any 

process variability. 

• Allows consistency with other rules. Based on the 

total population of vents in the HON framework, an* 

"x" value of 4 appears to be more representative. 

• Language has been added to the regulation 

Engineering Assessment Issue: 

• EPA has come up with language based on its understanding 

of the proposal received from CMA. (See attachment) 

• Comments? 

II. Wrap-up 
P.6 

ATTACHMENT 

T O r\Ce^Or"J 
insert (£! \ / 

CO Ervgineerina Assessment* n-^y (ae 0S«d to dciOtiiine 

process veN- Stream -floV rate, ne. heating value , TOC emission 

rate,, and total oroemic HAP emlss.on rate order <>£presery<attve 

operat..^Q conditk^s expected -ro yieid the lowest TRe irxtex 

Ll) Xf the TF\£ VQJ-_-C calculated 06*00 such ena-nesnoq 

assessrnenrr and the, T*e actio n ;n paragraph caX3) O-Ffhs 

section is greater than 4.0^-rtier, i*v_ pfr rnfl.'rv-nrincj ^raa*,,,^04" 

is strffiutni ,"and the ouner or- cpoatcr is rot r£qu»«-€d t o 

perfcmn -rhe rnea9urcn^er.+s specified in paragraph (d)(2) o f 

thi-s section. 

C»i) x f th e TRe valoe, catenated using sucV^i engineer* rib 

assess*rrent- and the "7R£ oaia.+van ,h paragraph Cd)(3. -oftn.s sec-hon is ies than or «joa.l to 4,0, then use. e-fc 

ecy^Q-1 no asGg36r>-gfifr*—fs—iftsofOciatfr ^ ^ -tr>e, o>»nar o r 

Gpc_rator is required io perform -rbe rttoasutsrnerrrs ^peci-TiCd 

' fo r groop de*yrrr\>OA.i\cr\ 

,0 paragraph Cd)C2^ of .hi*> sechonAor consider tme process 

^en-t- a. Group J- vent and co^npW with the err_ss»on 

reducricr. specv-fied ir\ §Co3.l)3Ga). 

Cm) Eroineerira assessment- \nQudcS > b-r. is not hro.ted TO, 

•tne- ^bUowincfc procedures '• x . 

CA') Pcevio^ t«sf resorts provided *he-T*eseFfl_r'd-re s**Ur

e preservative.' <# current operas no F*<^ces_at: the proc^s^ o^>t. 

OS') Berch-scaleror j>tot^spate. KSt date, -ie.. u i&haied t o fcnt_ •-. 

P.7 

r£prtsa-\+aKve of a£* ^ j?rcC^ A etee^ 

CO Ma*vrrx_rn ^ov^Tra+e, TOG emission f^^^*^ ^ 

Cm»s_,on rate,orW t heating \OL^C LiTM-. sfi<ec\-fied" wv*kn A, 

perfhirAa>ppi«aio»€,/-fo the p*qce» vent-
— irixirft y? com. — 

Co) Design analysis bassd on accept-ed chemical enqihcenno 

pr.nopfcS,measurable process, paramefc/s, or physical or d-em.ol 

laws o^ properties, fxampKS of- analysis methods includet 

ftoi are no»- limited to i 

CJ Use of material balances bas*d on process st-och.orr>e+ry 

t o CStlmate rra)firrvim OnajniG HA P G0r»Centra.-rfOr_S j 

(£) E5?1 motion o-f- . JX ^ *nono~4J^^ based on prwSiCaJ 

___ j^y7^<kafiy^'+ ftto*»«r^ 

CQuiprr^rrr de3»gh ab^>pU£pa_paC**+feSv 

(5) &tirwatton of TOC or organic H/.P oonCentiations 

based o n saturation COrd«-KooS, « 

'(4) -Stimaticn o t nrvaxirtx^^et^acti/Tq ualue based o n 

^jyyirhegg^c"chCerirrrarjo^>"Of' each Organic compound o^, 

ai-ramatiVeiY > ^S i-f <*-U "TOC ,v> -the Stream y.ere rrve " 

compound with -the hgvs r hearting value. 

Cf) All data, a3_crt.phons> and procedures v^d m -rhe 

eng.neer.ng assessment- Shall be docomentid. 

> 

^^^ ^ a* f. 3 If, 9 (.*•-&(.-_ 

y^Oa? neV 
inser-r© j/ ^ 

y 

OV) The span value -for Method 25A shall be. 50 parts per 

million by vOlomC. 

Cv) Use of ^'^ethcd Z5A is acceptable if +r>c response fronn 

-rne r\.Qr\-ie/d calibration gas .5 at least- 20 times tine Siancisrd 

dev, ati on c^ +^e r^sfcnse from the zero calibration qa^ when 

-the increment- is zeroed cn the rrcst sensitive scaie. 

(v>) line concentration of TOC shall be corrected to i 

percent- c.ygen us.ng -rre. procedures and eautvtion 10 (C)(3) Cn,) 

of -mi5 section. 

Cv>«) The oner or operator shall demonsnate that +ne 

concentration of TOC incivd.no methane drd ethane measured 

by Method 25 A, corrected t o 3 percent- Oxy^n is belo w 

2.5 parts per rr.M»or. by volume to be* consicjered 5L ^Oop 2 

vent- Witn a n agamic HAP ccr^ccanfration beicw 50 p_trts per 

miiiicn by vciunve and -ho qualify for -Hne »C>*J conosrvttvt.oi^ 

c*ous.cn m *<e3.H3(d).