P.I 

lOl(lo)t?RS'l 

v

t0ST'>. 

A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

^&2. * WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460 

"'<. J»0 , V 

JLK 1 2 

Mr. John W. Hougland 

Plant Manager 

Sohio Chemical Company 

P 0. 8ox 628 

Lima, Ohio 45802 

Oear Mr. Hougland: 

This letter responds to your letter of April 2, 1985 requesting 

clarification of the reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as they apply to air . 

emissions from Sohio's Lima, Ohio, facility . 

As stated in the preamble to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's 

(EPA) rule on reportable quantity (RQ) adjustments (50 Federal Register 13456, 

April 4, 1985), EPA has not yet determined a general policy with respect to 

Federally-permitted or continuous releases. Until a general policy is determined, the Agency will evaluate situations as they arise on a case-by-case-basis, 

Our views with respect to the situation you described are set forth below. EPA 

comments on individual situations should not be construed to apply to releases 

not specifically mentioned. The Agency's position on these issues is subject 

to modification as EPA gains more information and develops a more comprehensive 

policy. The information you have supplied, along with the many comments 

received during the Agency's RQ rulemaking, will be most helpful in formulating 

that comprehensive policy. 

Exemption for Federally-Permitted Releases 

Section 101(10)(H) includes within the definition of Federally-permitted 

release "any emission into the air subject to a permit or control regulation" 

under the Clean A1r Act (CAA). The legislative history on this exemption 

indicates that 1t is available only where CAA controls are "specifically 

designed to limit or eliminate emissions of a designated hazardous pollutant 

or a criteria pollutant" (Sen. Rep. 848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess.49 (1980)). 

EPA's current position is that, with respect to air emissions, the Federallypermitted release exemption is limited to releases of substances the emission 

of which the permit or regulation was specifically designed to limit. 
P.2 

Mr. John W. Hougland 

Page Two 

In determining whether the permit or regulation was specifically designed 

to control the hazardous substance at issue, the Agency will consider the terms 

of the permit or regulation, as well as any other material included in the public record supporting the permit or regulation. We note that in many cases, CAA 

permits and regulations may not be designed to control specific hazardous 

substances. 

Further, EPA believes that the Federally-permitted release exemption is 

limited to those emission levels that are allowed or contemplated by the permit 

or regulation. Releases above those levels in quantities equal to or greater 

than the RQ for the substance released are reportable under CERCLA. 

EPA's current interpretation of the applicability of the Federallypermitted release exemption to air emissions from Sohio's Lima, Ohio, facility 

is based on the description of the facility and releases in your letter of 

April 2, 1985. Your letter describes three types of releases of gaseous 

acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, and hydrogen cyanide from a stack permitted by 

the Ohio EPA: 

0 Routine operating emissions; 

0 Emissions as the result of startup and 

shutdown of the reactors; and 

0 Emissions as the result of malfunctions. 

EPA's present interpretation of the applicability of the Federally-permitted 

release exemption to each of these types of releases is described below. 

The RQs of acrylonitrile, acetonltrile, and hydrogen cyanide are 100, 

5000, and 10 pounds, respectively. If your permit was specifically designed 

to control these pollutants, EPA would consider releases of these substances 

that do not exceed permitted levels by an RQ or more to be Federally-permitted 

and exempt from reporting requirements under section 103 of CERCLA. 

It is not clear from your letter whether releases occuring during startup 

and shutdown of the reactors are controlled in the facility's permit. If these 

emissions are controlled by the permit, EPA would consider these releases to be 

Federally-permitted 1f they do not exceed permitted levels by an RQ or more, 

and reporting under CERCLA section 103 would not be required. Based on estimates 

provided in your April 2, 1985, letter, releases of acetonitrile apparently would 

not exceed the levels achieved by the control technology by an RQ or more and, 

therefore, would not need to be reported. Releases of acrylonitrile and hydrogen 

cyanide during startup and shutdown, however, may exceed permitted levels by an 

RQ or more and if so should be reported. Releases resulting from startup and 

shutdown that are not addressed by the permit or occur more frequently than 

allowed by the permit would not be Federally-permitted. Reporting of these 

releases would be required if they equal or exceed the RQ for the particular 

substance. 
P.3 

Mr. John w. Hougland 

Page Three 

Releases due to malfunctions of the reactor or control mechanisms are 

presumed not to be allowed by the permit; therefore, these releases would not 

be considered Federally-permitted releases. As with any non-permitted releases 

resulting from startup or shutdown, releases of acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, or 

hydrogen cyanide from the reactors as a result of malfunctions must be reported 

under section 103 of CERCLA if they equal or exceed the RQ for the particular 

hazardous substance. 

Exemption for Continuous Releases 

The limited reporting exemption in section 103(f)(2) of CERCLA is available 

only for continuous releases which are "stable in quantity and rate." In order 

to be eligible for this exemption, the releaser must have notified the National 

Response Center (NRC) of the releases "for a period sufficient to establish the 

continuity, quantity and regularity of such a release." Your letter does not 

indicate compliance with this prerequisite. We note further that persons 

eligible for the continuous release exemption must still notify the NRC annually, 

and at such times as there are statistically significant increases in the amounts 

released. 

Aside from the need to comply with these statutory requirements, EPA has 

serious doubts that releases resulting from startup and shutdown of the reactors 

are eligible for the continuous release exemption. These emissions, although 

perhaps anticipated, are not continuous and do not occur on a regular schedule. 

Furthermore, these releases do not occur frequently, and the reporting burden 

is not expected to be unreasonable. Releases due to malfunctions of the reactors 

or emission controls are not continuous, regular or anticipated; therefore, 

these releases are not eligible for the limited continuous release exemption. 

If I can be of any further assistance to you on this matter, please do 

not hesitate to contact me. EPA appreciates Sohio's cooperation in this area 

of mutual concern. 

Sincerely yours^ 

— > / ' f, 

i i 

William N. Hedeman, Jr. ^ 

Oirector 

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response 
P.4 

io\(io)pn-s-u^QcUe4 

^OHIOl SOHIO CHEMICAL COMPANY -

FT AM4N0A »OAO . P C 3Cx s ; 3 , J W A - r 

April 2, L985 

National Response Center 

c/o U. S. Coast Guard 

2100 Second St., S.W. 

Room 2611 

Washington, D.C. 20593 

Attn: Duty Officer 

William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director 

Office of Emergency & Remedial Response 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Mr. Kenneth A. Schultz, Chief 

Emergency Response 

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

361 E. Broad Street 

Columbus, OH 43216-1049 

RE: Notice of Releases and Request for Interpretation. 

Dear Sirs: 

This letter is written on behalf of Sohio Chemical Company, a 

wholly-owned subsidiary of The Standard Oil Company (an Ohio corporation). 

Sohio Chemical Company owns and operates a chemical manufacturing facility 

'located in Lima, Ohio. I have been plant manager of that facility since 

November, 1984. 

As a part of becoming familiar with the operations of the plane, I have 

had occasion to review, among other things, a portion of the history of the 

plant's releases of materials to the environment. This was done with a view 

to determining first the frequency, magnitude and causes of those releases, 

and second whether there are steps that can and should be taken to minimize 

such releases, and thereby help to insure the safety of our operation. 

Recent events external to Sohio Chemical, particularly the increased 

scrutiny of chemical operations in the wake of the Bhopal tragedy, have caused 

me to be concerned about the interpretation of the notice requirements of 

Section 103(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act. The purpose of this letter is to obtain some clarification of 

how those requirements may relate to atmospheric emissions of hazardous 

substances from a particular vent stack at our plant which has a permit under 

the State Implementation Plan. Sohio Chemical has always believed such 
P.5 

National Response Center " ?a? a 

and 

William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director 

emissions are "federally permitted releases" not subject to the notification 

requirements. However, press accounts of actions in regard to the Union 

Carbide facility in Institute, West Virginia suggest that our interpretation 

may no longer be viewed as correct. To facilitate answering our inquiry, and 

as a precaution in the event the notification requirements are now determined 

to be applicable, this letter will also serve as notice of release pursuant to 

Section 103 of CERCLA. 

The Plant 

One of the chemicals manufactured at the Sohio Chemical facility in Lima 

is acrylonitrile. In the acrylonitrile production process, gaseous reactants 

are combined in a reactor vessel. The gases from that reaction are passed 

first through a quench tower, which removes most of the heavier organics and 

converts ammonia to a sulfate, and then through an absorber, which removes 

most of the soluble organics, including acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, and 

hydrogen cyanide. The resulting cleaned gases are then discharged to the 

atmosphere through a stack. There is a permit, issued by Ohio EPA pursuant to 

the State Implementation Plan, to operate the two reactors, with quench tower 

and absorber. In the permit application, the quench tower is identified as" 

the primary collection device and the absorber as the secondary collection 

device. The present 200 foot stack is also described. 

The Releases 

During the period from January, 1981 to the present, the annual average 

of emissions from the stack during routine operations has included the amounts 

of hazardous substances as shown on Table 1 (attached). 

The statements of precision are based on a 95% confidence level in the 

statistical procedure for averaging and do not include analytical imprecision. 

These averages were computed as a straight average of test results (excluding 

process equipment malfunctions) during a given calendar year. Testing of 

emissions is not done on any regular or fixed schedule, so some years had more 

tests than others. 

In addition to routine operating emissions, there have also been during 

the period January 1981 to the present, additional emissions as a result of 

shutdowns and startups of the two reactors. Safety consideration to prevent 

explosions have precluded routing offgases through the absorber during startup 

and shutdown. It has not been technically feasible to measure the amounts of 

these emissions. However, mathematical modeling of the system indicates that 

emissions are believed to have been in the range of from about 245 lb. to 453 

lbs. of acrylonitrile per startup, and on the order of 1850 lbs. of 

acrylonitrile per shutdown. Similarly, acetonitrile emissions are estimated 

to have been about 2 lbs. on startup and about 320 during shutdown, while 

hydrogen cyanide is estimated to have been released in amounts of 30 lbs. 

during startup and about 800 lbs. on shutdown. The reactor startups and 

shutdowns during this period are listed in tables 2 and 3 respectively. 

We are in the process of devising changes to operating procedures to 

allow maintenance of safety while significantly reducing all startup emissions 

and for what should amount to about two-thirds of the shutdown cases. 
P.6 

National Response Center Pflge 3 

and 

William N. Hederaan, Jr., Director 

A third category of releases involves those occasions where there have 

been malfunctions, such as of the absorber or quench tower, resulting in a 

higher level of emissions than usual. One such occasion was on October 10-11, 

1984. At that time, there was a malfunction in the absorber (which had been 

recently revamped) resulting in emission rates measured at 1310 to 

1603 lb./hour over a period of approximately 24 hours. Emission rates of 

acetonitrile and hydrogen cyanide were measured at 3 to 7 lb./hour and 306 to 

437 lb./ hour, respectively, over the same period. Quantification of 

emissions during this 24 hours period is difficult, but it is estimated that 

the approximate total amounts released over these two calendar days were: 

acrylonitrile: 35,100 lb. 

acetonitrile: 120 lb. 

hydrogen cyanide: 8,980 lb. 

An earlier revamp of the absorber also resulted in a higher level of 

emissions than usual on August 16-18, 1984. Acrylonitrile emissions rate 

measured 179 lb./hour to 843 lb./hour over a period less than 72 hours. 

Hydrogen cyanide emission rate ranged from 136 lb./hour to 281 lb./hour and 

acetonitrile emission rate was measured at 2 lb./hour over the same period. 

It is estimated that the approximate total amounts released over these three 

calendar days were: 

acrylonitrile 32,400 lb. 

acetonitrile 150 lb. 

hydrogen cyanide 16,800 lb. 

Sohio Chemical Company's Interpretation 

All of the emissions described above have occurred through a stack which 

is permitted by the Ohio EPA. That permit is based on an application which 

shows the quench tower and the absorber as pollution control devices, and on 

information which indicates that acetonitrile, acrylonitrile and hydrogen 

cyanide are among the pollutants to be controlled. Since the permit was 

issued pursuant to regulations which are part of the federally approved State 

Implementation Plan, the emissions from the stack are "subject to a permit". 

under an approved SIP. Therefore, as Sohio Chemical Company reads the 

statute, all of the above-described emissions constitute "federally permitted 

releases," as defined in Section 101(10) (H) of CERCLA, even though the permit 

does not contain numerical limitations. 

Further, even if the releases were not "federally permitted," they are of 

the type that would otherwise qualify as "continuous" releases, subject to 

Section 103(f) (2) of CERCLA. 

Request for Interpretation 

Sohio Chemical's interpretation has seemed a workable, sensible and 

efficient way to apply the notice requirements of CERCLA. The federal 

government would not need to be inundated by calls about atmospheric releases 

already regulated under the air pollution control laws, the agencies 

regulating those releases could easily determine whether any response was 
P.7 

National Response Center ?a,.. 

and 

William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director 

required (which it wasn't) , and the resources of the National Response Center 

could be saved for truly significant releases requiring response. 

However, it has been reported that EPA is considering seeking sanctions, 

apparently under CERCLA, for small atmospheric releases at the Union Carbide 

Institute plant. This suggests to us that EPA is using a somewhat narrower 

definition of "federally permitted release" than the one used by Sohio 

Chemical and, we suspect, most of the rest of industry. To provide some 

certainty of application, and avoid impairing the efficient functioning of the 

National Response Center, Sohio Chemical respectfully requests complete 

responses to the following questions: 

1. In the opinion of EPA and the National Response Center, are 

operating emissions, startup and shutdown emissions, and emissions 

during malfunctions from the acrylonitrile vent stack at Sohio 

Chemical Company's Lima facility "federally permitted releases," as 

defined in Section 101(10) of CERCLA? 

2. If any of those emissions are deemed not to be "federally permitted 

releases," then in the opinion of EPA and the National Response 

Center, do those emissions qualify for "continuous release" 

notification, pursuant to Section 103(f)(2) of CERCLA? 

Please direct your response to the undersigned at P. 0. Box 628, Lima, Ohio 

45802. Any questions about this matter may be directed to me or to Hugh 

Blythe, phone (419) 226-1297. 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, which is of 

importance to Sohio Chemical Company, and to industry in general. 

Sincerely, 

SOHIO CHEMICAL COMPANY 

/Joh n W. Hougland, '' / 

Plant Manager 

11 
Table 1 

ANNUAL AVERAOE EMISSIONS 

Acrylonitril e IICN ' ' Acetonltril e 

Year 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1Q 1985 

Ibs./hr 

8 

21 

11 

18 

6 

95% 

Confidence 

Range 

0-25 

0-95 

0-63 

0-54 

0-13 

lb: s. /day 

192 

504 

264 

432 

144 

lb s./lir. 

35 

35 

6 

7 

8 

95% 

Confidence 

Ran^e 

0-129 

0-144 

0-13 

0-17 

0-27 

lbs./d, 

840 

840 

144 

168 

192 

;iy lb s./hr, 

7 

5 

2 

3 

4 

Co 

95% 

nfIdence 

Range 

0-17 

0-10 

0-8 

0-7 

0-11 

lbs./day 

168 

120 

48 

72 

96 
P.9 

Table 2 

No. 2 Acrylo Reactor Start-ups 

1981 

A. February 6, 1981 - "B" reactor 

B. February 7, 1981 - "A" reactor 

C. March 31, 1981 - "3" reactor 

D. April 1, 1981 - "A" reactor 

E. December 15, 1981 - "A" reactor 

1982 

A. February 12, 1982 - "3" reactor 

B. May 4, 1982 - "A" reactor 

C. July 10, 1982 - "3" reactor 

D. September 16, 1982 - "A" reactor 

E. October 23, 1982 - "A" reactor 

F. November 4, 1982 - "B" reactor 

G. November 20, 1982 - "A" reactor 

H. December 25, 1982 - "B" reactor 

I. December 26, 1982 - "A" reactor 

1983 

A. February 17, 1983 - "B" reactor 

B. March 11, 1983 - "B" reactor 

C. April 6, 1983 - "A" reactor 

D. May 18, 1983 - "A" reactor 

E. July 31, 1983 - "B" reactor 
P.10 

No. 2 Acrylo Reactor Scart-uos 

?age 2 

F. August 1, 1983 - "A" reactor 

G. August 2, 1983 - "A" reactor 

H. August 9, 1983 - "A" reactor 

I. August 24, 1983 - "B" reactor 

J. August 25, 1983 - "A" reactor 

K. October 12, 1983 - "B" reactor 

L. October 13, 1983 - "A" reactor 

M. October 15. 1983 - "A" reactor 

1984 

A. January 24, 1984 - "B" reactor 

B. January 24, 1984 - "A" reactor 

C. April 12, 1984 - "A" reactor 

D. June 16, 1984 - "B" reactor 

E. July 26, 1984 - "A" reactor 

F. October 7, 1984 - "A" reactor 

G. October 10, 1984 - "3" reactor 

H. November 17, 1984 - "A" reactor 

I. November 18, 1984 - "B" reactor 

J. December 15, 1984 - "B" reactor 

1985 

A. February 27, 1985 - "3" reactor 
P.11 

Table 3 

No.2 Acrylo Shutdowns 

1981 

A. An emergency shutdown of the entire No. 2 unit occurred on February 6, 

1981. 

B. A scheduled shutdown of the entire No. 2 unit occurred on March 22, 1981 

C. A scheduled shutdown of "A" Reactor occurred on December 6, 1981. 

1982 

A. A scheduled shutdown of "B" reactor occurred on February 7, 1982. 

B. "A" reactor was shut down on May 4, 1982. 

C. "B" reactor was shut down on July 9, 1982. 

D. A scheduled shutdown of "A" reactor occurred on September 12, 1982. 

E. "A" reactor was shut down on October 15, 1982. 

F. A scheduled shutdown of "B" reactor occurred on October 31, 1982. 

G. "A" reactor was shut down on November 10, 1982. 

H. An emergency shutdown of the entire No. 2 Unit occurred on 

December 24, 1982. 

1983 

A. A scheduled shutdown of "B" reactor occurred on February 16, 1983. 

B. A scheduled shutdown of "B" reactor occurred on March 7, 1983. 

C. A scheduled shutdown of "A" reactor occurred on April 5, 1983. 

D. A planned shutdown of "A" reactor took place on May 15, 1983. 

E. A scheduled shutdown of the entire unit occurred on July 23 and 24, 1983. 

F. "A" reactor was shut down on August 1, 1983. 
P.12 

No. 2 Acrylo Shutdowns pa g e •, 

G. "A" reactor was shut down again on August 2, 1983. 

H. The entire unit was shut down on August 19, 1983. 

I. An emergency shutdown of the entire unit occurred at 0400 hours on 

October 12, 1983. 

j. "A" reactor was shut down again on October 14, 1983. 

1984 

A. An emergency shutdown of the entire No. 2 unit occurred at 2120 hours on 

January 23, 1984. 

B. "A" reactor was shut down at 1600 hours on April 6, 1984. 

C. "B" reactor was shut down at 0930 hours on June 12. 

D. "A" reactor was shut down at 2400 hours on July 14, 1984. 

E. A scheduled turnaround of the No. 2 unit began on September 21, 1934. 

F. The entire unit was shut down again on November 10, 1984. 

G. "3" reactor was shut down at 2000 hours on December 12, 1984. 

1985 

A. "B" reactor was shut down on February 27, 1985,