p.1 

OAR Box 1875 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

23) ll-E-41 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/1/200811:12:45 AM Sheet 23 of 86 
P.2 

,> » A-90-19 

ll-E-41 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 

ATTENDEES: 

Bob Rosensteel 

Bennett King 

April 21, 1992 

:..,¥© OO V 

2

; : o£C 181992 

1,._2^ — 

Final Meeting Notes for EPA/CMA Meeting of 

October 23, 1990 

Bob Rosensteel, EPA/CPB 

Les Evans, EPA/CPB 

Linda Chaput, EPA/SDB 

Richard Sigman, CMA 

Brian Taranto, CMA 

Al Wehe, EPA/CEIS 

John Robson, EPA/CEIS 

Karen Fidler, CMA 

C D . Malloch, CMA 

Bennett King, Radian 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This meeting was called to discuss two information requests 

from EPA to CMA. The two information requests discussed at this 

meeting were presented in letters from EPA To CMA: 

1) Les Evans to Karen Fidler, July 2, 1990: request for 

capacity, production, and process complexity for process 

units producing SOCMI chemicals, and the market price of 

the chemicals. 

2) Bob Rosensteel to Richard Sigman, September 28, 

1990: request for answers to a set of questions about 

the potential problems if approximately 450 SOCMI 

chemicals are regulated within 3 years of promulgation of 

the HON. These potential problem concern the 

availability of resources to design, manufacture, and 

install control devices that may result 

The meeting also served as a general information exchange between 

EPA and CMA on the HON project. Highlights from the meeting are 

grouped under these two headings. 

2.0 INFORMATION REQUESTS 

2.1 Request #1: Industry Characteristics for Various Chemicals. 

CMA expressed concern over what the information from the first 

request will be used for. What aspects of the rulemaking process 

will this additional information affect (the economic analysis or 

regulatory alternative development or both)? How will it affect 
P.3 

regulatory alternatives? They also expressed concern with the 

confidentiality of production data and were reluctant to provide 

some data. 

EPA responded that additional data will be used for both 

aspects of the rulemaking process. From an economic viewpoint, 

additional data will improve the Agency's ability to select a 

subset of chemicals for detailed economic analysis. From a 

regulatory alternative development viewpoint, additional data will 

increase the subset of the SOCMI that can be represented in the 

Industrial Profile. The Industrial Profile is a data base that 

serves as the basis for estimating impacts of various control 

options on SOCMI process units. Improvements to the information in 

the Industrial Profile will improve our estimates of impacts for 

the SOCMI. These impacts play a key role in the development of 

regulatory alternatives. 

CMA stated they would be unable to provide information by 

November 15, 1990. Regardless, the EPA requested that any 

available information be provided. 

Request #2: Engineering Services and Vendors 

Two primary topics of discussion took place in relation to this 

information request. The first involved CMA's preliminary 

responses to the questions. The second involved CMA's strong 

desire for a phased implementation of the HON rule. 

Preliminary CMA Responses to Ouestions 

CMA expressed concerns that there is likely to be insufficient 

availability of engineering services and vendor supplied control 

equipment for all of SOCMI to comply within 3 years if a rule 

affecting about 450 chemicals is promulgated in one action. CMA 

expressed their willingness to support EPA in their analysis of the 

potential shortage of engineering services and vendor supplied 

control equipment. 

EPA responded that these concerns, once they are supported by 

analyses/studies, will be provided to EPA management for 

consideration in decisions affecting this rulemaking. However, the 

CMA will need to provide information if these concerns are to be 

addressed. 
P.4 

CMA representatives said they would like to develop an 

industry-wide set of answers to the specific questions in the 

second information request. To develop such an answer, the 

information request will be discussed at an upcoming CMA workgroup 

meeting. In addition, the CMA is considering sending a survey to 

some companies. 

Brian Taranto, representing the Exxon Chemical Company, shared 

the following thoughts on what the problems would be like (some of 

this is from their experience in meeting the one year requirement 

on the benzene rule): 

forced to buy equipment not ideal for the job, but that 

was available 

paying premium on their equipment orders 

in-house engineering services are already taxed to the 

limit by the early reduction programs Exxon is 

implementing, this would only increase the burden 

limited availability of qualified engineering services 

contractors 

limited company personnel to manage/review engineering 

contractors 

in-house safety issues 

demand for vendor supplied control equipments will exceed 

the supply 

C D . Malloch representing Monsanto shared these concerns: 

EPA expressed the desire for the following additional 

information to use in an analysis concerning engineering services 

and vendors: 

information concerning the existence of SOCMI 

small businesses 

number of companies that will apply for the 

compliance date extension under the early reduction 

clause of the CAAA 

growth in control technology installations within SOCMI 

over the past years 

names of engineering services companies and vendors used 

by SOCMI companies 
P.5 

Phased Implementation 

The CMA expressed their strong desire for a phased 

implementation of the HON rule. CMA is in the process of hiring a 

contractor to develop sub-categories within the SOCMI industry that 

could be used in concert with a phased implementation. In 

addition, the CMA informed EPA they were going to develop several 

potential phasing approaches. 

The CMA expressed two points arguing against simultaneously 

implementing the HON rule across the entire industry. 

(1) Given the language of the Clean Air Act Amendments, the 

breadth of the source category will significantly influence the 

determination of the MACT floors (minimum acceptable control level) 

for existing and new sources. With such a broad category (the 

entire industry at once), how do you avoid selecting a MACT (driven 

by a few well-controlled sources) that doesn't over-burden the 

average and perhaps majority of the sources within that source 

category? 

(2) Residual risk standard setting is required for the entire 

source category if one source within the source category exceeds 

one in one million risk. With such a broad source category, there 

is sure to be a source exceeding the risk cut-off. Residual risk 

standard setting will be required not only for the source exceeding 

the cut-off, but for the rest of SOCMI as well. 

During this discussion, EPA asked how the Equipment Leaks 

Negotiated Regulation staging relates to what CMA is asking for 

with the HON. CMA replied that the two do not share a similar 

level of impact because requirements under the Equipment Leaks 

Standard are for people and monitors, not control equipment. 

3.0 GENERAL HON INFORMATION 

The HON schedule is firm, and changes are not anticipated at 

this time. Proposal is scheduled for November 1991 and 

promulgation for October 1992. CMA stressed their need to be kept 

current on EPA's planned proposal date since credit under the early 

reduction clause of the CAA can only be achieved if a company 

commits to a reduction plan prior to proposal. 
P.6 

EPA's current approach for the HON program contains the 

following elements: 

— the production of all SOCMI chemicals will be affected 

under the HON rule at the same time (simultaneous implementation 

across the industry) 

— the same level of control will be required for a given 

emission source type for all of SOCMI 

— new and existing sources will likely have the same control 

technology to achieve maximum reduction of emissions. However, this 

could change, especially for new sources since the single best 

controlled similar source within a source category establishes the 

MACT floor for new sources. For existing sources, the floor is 

established based on the stop performing 12 percent of existing 

sources. 

CMA asked how regulatory alternatives would differ. Would it 

be by control technology or cut-off (applicability) level? The EPA 

responded that regulatory alternatives are anticipated to differ by 

cut-off level. A more stringent alternative would control more 

sources. The control technologies to be used for estimating 

emissions reductions and control costs are already known. For 

Process Vents and the control technologies currently under 

consideration are the same as those in the NSPS rules — 98 percent 

emission reduction by combustion. The Agency is anticipating the 

use of 98% combustion for the control of Transfer emissions. For 

storage tanks, controls include internal floating roofs with proper 

seals and fittings and the use of condensers where floating roofs 

are not applicable. These are the same controls required by 

previous NSPS and NESHAP regulations. It is anticipated that steam 

stripping will be the control technology for Wastewater. 

Requirement for the Equipment Leaks rule will be set by the 

negotiated regulation.