# OAR Box 1875

Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 19 ) ll-E-3 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:45AM Sheet 19of 86 P. 1P. 2

' r \ 

# A-90-1 9 ll-E-3 7 

# USB * UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENCY Offic e ofAi rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1

MA R 4 I99 2



### MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Submitta l to Docke t A-90-1 9 

## OiH 

## I B 

## UIV 

## ! ' 

## y ! DE C I8199 2' . 

# L J 

# » EP AAlf l POCKE T[

FROM : 

### TO : Daphne L . McMurrer "

Standard s Development Branch , ES D(MD-13 ) Th e File s Attachedare : (1 ) th e minute s fro

m m y November 19 , 199 1 presentatio

nt o th e Nationa l Ai r Pollutio nContro l Technique s Advisor y Committe e (NAPCTAC) ; an d(2 ) th

e statement made b

y Thoma s Robinson , o

nbehal f o f th

e Chemica l Manufacturer s Association , a t th e sam e meeting . Thes e tw o attachment s documen t th e NAPCTAC s discussio no f the Nationa l Emission s Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAP ) for Sourc e Categories : Hazardou s Organi c Emission s fro m the Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturin

g Industr

y an dSeve nOthe r Sourc e Categories . Thi s regulatio

ni s commonly

know na s the Hazardou s Organi c NESHAP , o r HON . The concern s expresse db y Mr . Robinso

ninhi s statement an d thos e expressedb

y th e member s o f the NAPCTA C i nth e discussio

n tha t followe

dm y presentatio

nwer e consideredi nth e development o f the proposedHON . Attachmen tP. 3

Daphn e McMurre r o f th e Standard s Developmen t Branch , presenter , opene d b yremindin g everyon e tha t th e Hazardou s Organi c NESHA P (HON ) i s schedule d t o b e propose d i n lat e February o r earl yMarc h1992 , and 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 Manufacturin g Industry(SOCMI ) processe s whic hproduc 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 ra wmaterial . Onl ymajo r sources , a s define d b yth e CAAA , wil l b e regulated . Th e EPAwil l b e seekin g commen t o n th e existenc e o f SOCM I are a source s and 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 averagin g schem e fo r th e HO Ni s bein g develope d t o addres s th e complexit yand diversit ywithi n th e sourc e category . Becaus e o f thi s complexit yand 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 averagin g i s intende d t o provid e flexibilit yand allo wequa l o r greate r emissio n reduction s a t lowe r costs . Thi s concep t differ s frombubblin g sinc e n o emissio n cap s wil l b e set . Th e settin g o f emissio n cap s unde r previou s bubblin g policie s di d no t accoun t fo r decrease s i n productio n o r dismantlin g o f equipment . A s a result , whe n on e o r mor e o f thes e event s occurred , th e remainin g emissio n point s wer e fre e t o emi t mor e tha n originall yintende d withou t exceedin g th e emissio n cap . Emission s averagin g wil l tak e int o accoun t change s t o th e sourc e and kee p emission s fromindividua l emissio n point s a t th e intende d level .P. 4

Th e scop e o f th e HONemission s averagin g 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 averagin g wil l no t b e allowe d wit han yproduc t proces s unit s whic har e no t regulate d b

yth e HON(outsid e th e definitio n o f source) . Emission s averagin g mayinclud e emission s fromeligibl e proces s vents , storag e tanks , wastewate r streams , and transfe r loading racks . Emission s fromequipmen t leak s wil l b e exclude d from emission s averagin g du e t o th e uncertaint yinvolve d i n quantifyin g emissions , th e inabilit yt o assig n a known , nomina l emission s contro l efficienc yrating , and becaus e th e equipmen t leak s standar d wa s develope d throug hth e regulator ynegotiatio n proces s and includin g i t woul d nullif yth e agreemen t reached . Th e formand complianc e plan s bein g develope d wil l indicat e wha t requirement s ar e presente d and 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 administratin g and enforcin g 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 administerin g th e Titl e V permits . Alternativ e operatin g 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 violatin g th e emission s average . Fo r emission s averaging , under-controllin g a n emissio n poin t wil l b e regarde d a s a debit , whil e over-controllin g 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 ma yb e generate d b y controllin g 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 controllin g a smal l storag e tank tha t mayb e belo wth e siz e applicabilit ycriteri a fo r th e HON , and woul d no t b e require d t oP. 5

appl yemissio n controls . Second , credit s ca n b e generate d b y 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 b yusin g a differen t contro l technologytha n tha t require d b yth e regulation , an d no t b yusin g th e sam e contro l technologya t increase d efficiency . Fo r example , th e standar d mayrequir e 9 8 percen t contro l efficienc yo n a proces s ven t and i f th e sourc e use d a differen t contro l technologywhic hha 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 wayt 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 hcontro l i s o r i s no t required . A s wit hth 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 b yproductio n cutback s o r an y 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 programan 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 programan

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 and 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 , thereb yensurin 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 b yEPA tha t th e us e o f a discountin g facto r i s fai r and 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 , and 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 .P. 6

Discussio n Followin g th e EPApresentation , Mr . Bruc e Jordan , Directo r o f th e Emissio n Standard s Division , discusse d th e fou r goal s o f th e HO Nstandard . Th e firs t goa l wa s t o provid e flexibilit yt o industryt o hel p minimiz e th e cost s o f meetin g th e standard . Th e second wa s t o provid e eas e o f implementation . Thir d wa s certaint yi n enforceability . And fourt hwa s t o preven t environmenta l damage . Committe e membe r Mr . Donal d Arkel l (Lan e Regiona l Ai r Pollutio n Authority ) opene d th e questio n segmen t b yaskin g ho w ne wan d existin g 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 existin g source . Sh e state d tha t ne w emissio n point s ar e no t availabl e fo r averaging , and woul d b e subjec t t o th e ne wsourc e MACT . Existin g point s withi n a sourc e mayonl yb e average d wit hothe r existin g points . Mr . Arkel l aske d i f tha t mean t ne wan d existin g 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 and source . An emissio n poin t i s a n individua l tan k 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 averagin g accountin g 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 recordkeepin g woul d b e required , th e rul e wil l giv e explici t instruction s o n ho wt 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 hth e rule , source s mus t als o sho wth e parameter s the yus e t o demonstrat e thei r prope r us e o f contro l technology .P. 7

Committe e membe r Mr . Bria n Tarant o (Exxo n Chemica l Americas ) aske d 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 programwoul 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 tha n th e HON 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 program an 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 averagin g 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 averagin g i s currentl ybein g considere d onl yfo r th e HONand tha t th e EPAwoul 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 averagin g wil l b e studie d internall ybyth e EPAand tha t comment s wil l b e collecte d and considere d betwee n proposa l and promulgatio n and , i f warranted , emission s averagin g coul d b e remove d fromth e promulgate d standard . Ms . Debora hSheima n (Natura l Resource s Defens e Council ) aske d whethe r a quantitativ e analysi s o f th e averagin g schem e ha d bee n 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 discountin g factor . Th e actua l decreas e depend s o n th e discountin g facto r chosen . Ms . Sheima n the n state d tha t th e emissio n level s fromwhic hth e source s ar e startin g d o no t necessaril yreflec t MACT . Mr . Jorda n reiterate d th e EPA' s positio n tha t emission s averagin g wil l achiev e th e sam e amoun t o r greate r emissio n reduction s tha n woul d b e achieve d otherwise . Ms . McMurre r state d tha t credit s ca n onl y b e generate d b

ycontrollin g 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

ysayin g that , fo r example , everyproces s ven t mayno t b e controlle d byth e HONand thi s woul d provid e a sourc e opportunitie s t o achiev e emissio n credits .P. 8

Mr . Ralp hHis 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 and tha t ther e ma yb e individua l case s wher e a mor e stringen t contro l technologyca 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 (Eastma n Chemical s Company ) discusse d th e subjec t o f quarterl yemissio n limits , specificall ya s the y 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 hrollin g average . Ms . Mclntir e the n aske d wha t happen s i f yo u ar e ou t o f complianc e and 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 averagin g 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 averagin g an d tha t state s ar e give n authorit yt o determin e complianc e sinc e the yestablis hth e permits . Mr . WilliamDenniso n (Denniso n and Associates ) aske d whethe r th e discountin g facto r o f 2 0 percen t i s workabl e and 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 and valu e o f th e discountin g factor . Sh e state d tha t EP Awelcome d feedbac k o n thi s topic . Next , Mr . Denniso n state d tha t th e standar d di d no t seemt o allo wa reductio n i n productio n t o generat e credits . Ms . McMurre r replie d tha t th e productio n change s resultin g i n differen t emission s ar e allowed . However , i f an yemissio n point s associate d wit hth e equipmen t experiencin g change s i n productio n level s wer e involve d i n a n emission s average , an yunanticipate d debit s woul d nee d t o b e balance d wit hadditiona l credits . Ms .P. 9

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 . John Pinkerto n (Nationa l Counci l o f th e Pape r Industry fo r Ai r and StreamImprovement , Inc. ) aske d ho wwastewate r ai r emission s fi t int o th e emission s averagin g concept . Dr . Meye r replie d tha t emission s fromHONwastewate r ar e distinguishabl e fromothe r wastewate r becaus e the yar e estimate d a t an d controlle d fromth 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 controllin g wastewate r emission s fromnon-SOCM I processes . Ms . McMurre r state d tha t thi s wa s correct . Committe e membe r Mr . William0'Sulliva n (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 . 0'Sulliva n the n provide d EPAwit hthre e recommendations . Th e firs t recommendatio n wa s t o includ e enforceabl e short-term emissio n limit s wit hpoint-by-poin t commitments . Second , Mr . 0'Sulliva n disagree d wit hth 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 and 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 . 0'Sulliva n state d tha t unde r th e Earl yReduction s program , credit s ca n b e generate d throughproces s shutdowns . Mr . 0'Sulliva n fel t tha t shutdow n credit s shoul d no t b e allowe d withi n th e emission s averagin g 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 fromth e Pollutio n Preventio n Ac t o f 199 0 wa s bein g used . Dr . Meye r adde d tha t sinc e pollutio n preventio n wa s bein g incorporate d int o th e HON , th e rul e woul d giv e th e definitio n a s well . Ms . Sheima n adde d 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

m Compan yo f America ) aske d whyth e Industria l Toxic s Program(ITP ) wa s no t include d a s a n activit yfo r generatin gP.1 0

emissio n credits . Mr . Jorda n replie d tha t man yo f th e activitie s take n unde r thi s programar e pollutio n preventio n 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 .P.1 1 

# A

CHEMICA L MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATIO

N

STATEMEN T O F THOMA S ROBINSON ON BEHAL F O F TH E CHEMICA L MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATION

BEFOR E TH E NATIONAL AI RPOLLUTION CONTRO L TECHNIQUE S ADVISORYCOMMITTE E

O N TH E HAZARDOU S ORGANI C NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARD S FORHAZARDOU S AI RPOLLUTANT S NOVEMBE R19,199 1

250 1 M Street , NW' 202-887-110 0 Washington , D.C

. 2003 7 Tele x8961 7 (CM AWSH )P.1 2

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 EMISSION STANDARD S FO RHAZARDOU S AI RPOLLUTANT S (NESHAP ) FO RHAZARDOU 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 th e opportunit y t o testif y

today onbehal f o f th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Association . CM A i s a non-profi t trad e associatio nwhos e member s mak e u pmor e than9 0 percen t o f the productiv e capacit y for basi c industria l chemical s inth e Unite dStates . Inm y presentatio ntoday , I wil l touc hbriefl y onth e HO

N issue s tha t ar e mos t importan t t o member s o f CMA . A s yo umigh t wel l imagine , th e impac t o f thes e regulation s wil l b e significan t fo r CMA' s membe r companies . On e o f th e mos t importan t issue s i s emission s tradin g (or "averaging") . It' s a cost-effectiv e an defficien t way

t o achiev e the regulation' s pollutio ncontro l objectives . At th e sam e time , averagin g wil l hel pou r industry stay competitiv e inanincreasingl y competitive worl deconomy . Inou r view , every effor t shoul db e mad e t o mak e the 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 possibl e for 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 , inth e lon g run , t o achievin g a successfu l averagin g program . Base donou r experience, tradin g shoul db e allowe dbetwee nal l unit s ina sourc e category ; betwee nal l unit s wit hth e sam e MAC T standards ; an

dbetwee nal l sourc e categorie s regulate dona singl e promulgatio ndate . A s the 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 . Inou 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 s control s tha t aren' t covere db y th e standard—regardles s o f whe nthe control s were installed .P.1 3 T . Robinso nTestimony on Hazardou s Organic s Novembe r 19 , 199 1 Pag e 2 No t allowin g credi t for control s applie dbefor e anartificia l baselin e dat e i s counter-productive . I t punishe s companie s whic hhave take nth e initiative , voluntarily , t o reduc e emissions . I t als o directl y

conflict s wit hothe r EPA programs , mos t notabl y th e 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 b e a ne t los s t o th e environment . Whe nmeasurin g credits , a discountin g facto r i s no t necessary whe n calculatin g credit s for emission s averagin g becaus e EPA' s contro l efficiencie s an

dth e 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 de minimi s cutoffs . We se e the m a s anintegra l par t o f th e standard-settin g procedur e inlarg e measur e because they

achiev e th e mos t environmenta l benefi t pe r implementatio n dollar . Pu t anothe r way , de minimi s cutoff s wil l retur nth e 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 n o ne t positiv e effec t onth e environment . Requirin g th e applicatio no f technology beyond-h

e poin t o f diminishin g benefit s wil l b e counter-productive . A thir dkey

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 i nit s definition . A broa ddefinitio nsatisfie s th e fundamenta l purpos e o f the ne w regulatory

regime fo r ai r toxics , focusing o nefficien t applicatio no f technology

base dstandards . A broa ddefinitio no f "source " wil l allo w the Agenc y

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

i s very

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

m t o determine applicabilit y clearl y

an dconclusively . I f eac hproces 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 th e Act . The HO N MAC T i s a sourc e categor y base dstandard . Consequently , applicabilit y

criteri a mus t determine whethe r a sourc e "reside s within " a sourc e category regulate db

y th e HO

N MACT . Unit s regulate db y the HO

N shoul dno t be subjec t t o later , .possibl y incompatibl e MAC T standards . Onc e a sourc e ha s bee n"assigned " t o a sourc e category , i t wil l know exactl y

whic hregulation s i t mus t follow , an dwhe ni t mus tP.1 4 T . Robinso n Testimon yon Hazardou s Organic s Novembe r 19 , 199 1 Pag e 3 comply . Al l hazardou s emission s wil l b e effectivel yregulated b yth e standard covering tha t category . Thi s approac hwil l alleviat e mucho f industry' s uncertainty , an d eas e EPA' s administrative burden . Withou t clearl ydefine d applicabilit ycriteria , the limit s o f the regulate d populatio n wil l continu e t o expan d an d i t wil l become mor e difficul t t o define . Potentially , the HO Ncoul d expan

d t o cove r al l unit s tha t creat e trac e amount s o f a stated chemical , stretchin g fa r beyon d the syntheti c organi c chemica l manufacturing industr yan d becoming an administrative nightmare . Th e las t genera l HO Nissu e I wan t t o rais e i s timin g an d compliance . I f EP

Apromulgate s a singl e HO Nencompassing al l o f SOCM I a t on e time , i t wil l b e difficult , perhap s impossible , fo r industr yt o mee t require d complianc e deadlines . Equipmen t shortages , delaye d deliveries , overburdene d agencie s facin g newlevel s o f permi t applications , an

d a scarcityo 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 yfin d itsel f unabl e t o compl ydu e t o event s beyon

d it s control , sucha s delay s in constructio n permits . Th e Agencymus t provid e fo r thes e possibilitie s in its

- complianc e timeline . Furthermore , EP

Ashoul d consider , in it s developmen t o f lowe r quantit ythreshol d regulations , the impac t suchregulation s wil l hav e o n th e HON . Th e scop e o f th e HO Ni s alread

ybroad , covering ove r hal f o f th e listed sourc e categories . Asignifican t lowerin g o f lesse r quantit ythresholds , an d a subsequen t increas e in th e numbe r o f source s trying t o compl ywithi n th e nex t fe wyears , wil l furthe r increas e the burde n o n overloade d agencies . I t wil l als o increas e the difficult yo f obtaining contro l equipmen t i n a reasonabl e time frame . EP Ashoul d conside r the ne t environmenta l benefit s o f contro l technologie s whe n considering alternativ e technologie s an d settin

g MAC T standards . Increase d NOx emission s an d fue l consumptio n ar e bot h by-product s o f familia r contro l technologies . I n area s o f non-attainment , th e maximu menvironmenta l improvemen t ma yb e achieve d b yusing a marginall yles s efficien t technolog yt o achiev e a balanc e betwee n toxics , NOx , SOx , an d energ yconsumption . I woul dlik e t o spen d m yremaining time discussing a specifi c are a o f th e HO

N - secondar

yemission s fro

mwastewater . Th e HO Ninclude s industria l wastewate r becaus e volatil e ai r toxic s fro mwastewater collectio n an d treatmen t system s can b e released t o the atmosphere . CM

Asupport s th e regulatio n o f wastewate r emissions . However , ther e ar e way s t o maximiz e overal l control s an d minimize , costs . No t al l HAP' s can vaporiz e t o th e atmosphere . CM Aencourage s the Agencyt o implemen t a tiere d approac ht o controlling wastewate r emission s base d o n physica l chemistry . Onl yvolatil e Grou p 1 compound s thos e whic hhav e the uniqu e physica l propertie s t o actuall yente r the atmospher e - shoul d b e regulated . Non-volatil e compound s which , b yth eT . Robinso nTestimon y on Hazardou s Organic s Novembe r 19 , 199 1 Pag e 4 laws o f physic s an dchemistry , canno t leave the wastewate r matrix , shoul dno t b e regulated . A clea r applicabilit y procedur e for wastewater , including d e 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 Dt o analyz e emission s fro m wastewater . Thi s analytica l methodshoul dno t b e use dunde r the HON . I t doe s no t correctl y identif y

the trul y volatil e constituen t o f tota l organic s presen t inth e wastewate r matrix . Metho d25 Dwil l resul t i nth 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 th e optima l contro l technology

for wastewate r emissions . Stea m strippin g i s inappropriat e for 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 dispose o f th e strippe dresidues . Finally , the 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 the atmosphere . Inconclusion , CM

A thank s th e NAPCTAC Committe e for thi s opportunit y

t o presen t some o f ou r idea s andconcern s regardin g the HON . We loo

kforwardt o workin g wit hwit hEPA a s i t move s forwardi n th e rulemakin g process . At thi s point , I'l l be please dt o answe r an y question s fro

m th e committee .