p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1875 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 51 ) ll-E-6 9 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:47

AM Sheet 51 of 86P. 2 

## A-90-1 9 ll-E-6 9

„, . * ° sr ^ „ „ * ^ %

oUNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENCY I »>s^^7 - Offic e ofAi rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s I __^V|/^

. J

? Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1 

### X —-° o

v DE C1 6|99 2;i , ; n]99 2

MEMORANDU

M.... X: X'[Xk : .*V " SUBJECT : May14 , 199 2 Conferenc e Cal l betwee n EP Aan d Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n FROM : Ja n Meye r (MD-13 ) typ^^^X'

Standard s Developmen t Branc h(\ TO : Docke t A-90-19 , Hazardou s Organi c NESHAP : Genera l

Informatio n an

d Proces s Vent s I . Purpos e Thi s conferenc e cal l wa s hel d t o hea r Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturer' s Association , Inc . (SOCMA ) concern s regarding th e draf t propose d packag e fo r th e Hazardou s Organi c NESHAP (HON) . II . Participant s Ja n Meye r EPA/SDB SherryEdward s SOCM A Mik e Dixo n Adven t Grou p Do t Kell yCIB AGeig y Mik e Moor e Enterlab III . Discussio n Th e SOCM

Aregueste d a conferenc e cal l t o discus s severa l concern s regarding th e 12/9 1 draf t proposa l package' s impac t o n batc h processor s an

d specialt ychemica l manufacturers . Th e discussio n topic s were : (1 ) applicability ; (2 ) lesse r guantit yemissio n rate ; (3 ) implementatio n plan ; an d (4 ) recordkeeping , reporting , an d testing reguirements . Th e discussio n i s summarize d belo wb ythes e topics . Applicabilit y Th e SOCM

Arepresentative s mentione d thre e area s o f concern : (1 ) definitio n o f batc hoperation , (2 ) definitio no f product , an d (3 ) clarificatio n o f whic hprovision s appl yt o batc hoperations . Th e concern s wer e simila r t o thos e mentione d b yrepresentative s o f th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n (CMA ) regarding batc hoperation s an d applie d t o th e same draf t languag e i nth e proposa l package . Jan Meye r describe d th e planne d clarification s t o th e definitio no f batc h operatio n an

d t o th e applicabilit ysection . I n addition , Ja n Meye rP. 3

. operatio n an

d t o th e applicabilit ysection . I n addition , Ja n Meye r describe d th e investigatio n int o a cleare r proces s fo r defining applicabilit yo f th e rul e whil e achieving th e same result . I t wa s suggeste d tha t SOCM Aconside r coordinating wit hother s o n thi s effort . Lesse r Quantit yEmissio n Rat e Th e SOCM

Arepresentative s inguire d whethe r ther e wer e definit e plan s t o establis hlesse r guantit yemissio n rates . Ja nMeye r explaine d tha t th e statu s o f thi s projec t wa s uncertai na t thi s time . Th e 12/9 1 packag e mention s lesse r guantit yemissio nrate s t o aler t source s o f th e possibilit ytha t th e majo r sourc e definitio nmay reflec t something othe r than 1 0 o r 2 5 tons/yr o f HAP emissions . Implementatio n Plan Th e SOCM

Arepresentative s expresse d concern s wit hth e amoun t o f informatio n being reguire d withi n12 0 day s o f issuanc e o f th e fina l rule . I n thei r view , i t woul d b e impossibl e t o submi t al l th e informatio n a t tha t time an d i t wil l b e a ver

ylabor-intensiv e repor t t o prepare . Theythough t tha t th e leve l o f detai l wa s mor e appropriat e fo r a permi t application . Ja n Meye r describe d a revise d approac htha t wa s unde r consideratio ni n whic ha sourc e woul d submi t a simpl e notic e a t 12 0 days . Th e simpl e notic e woul d provid e th e informatio n neede d b yRegion s an

d State s fo r planning . Unde r th e revise d approach , consideratio nwa s being give nt o reguiring th e implementatio n pla n onl yi f ther e wer e n o permi t applicatio ni n process . Thi s chang e wa s being considere d becaus e i t woul d eliminat e duplicativ e reporting o f th e same information . Recordkeeping . Reporting , an d Testing Th e SOCM

Arepresentative s expresse d concern s wit hth e vas t amoun t o f recordkeeping , testing , an d reporting i nth e draf t proposa l package . I n thei r opinion , some o f th e reguirement s suc ha s flow rat e cutoff s an

d flowweighte d annua l averag e concentration s ar e unworkabl e fo r batc hoperation s an d expos e plant s t o complianc e penaltie s fo r mino r paperwor k violations . Theysuggeste d tha t EP A shoul d conside r allowing us e o f engineering calculation s an d alternative s t o some o f th e testing provisions . Ja n Meye r regueste d tha t theyals o provid e suggestion s o n mor e workabl e approache s fo r reporting an d recordkeeping tha t woul d provid e th e necessaryenforcemen t information . Sh e acknowledge d tha t th e burde n wa s larg e an d describe d severa l idea s being considere d t o reduc e th e burde n an d consolidat e some o f th e recordkeeping an d reporting reguirements . Th e burde n associate d wit hth e eguipmen t leak provision s wa s als o briefl ydiscussed . Ja nMeye r regueste d tha t theysubmi t suggestion s on way s t o reduc e th e burden . Th e SOCM

Arepresentativ e als o noted tha t th e 3-month s rolling averag e fo r emission s average s preclude s us e o f emission s averaging provision s b

ymulti-purpos e batc hoperation s becaus e o f th e difficult yi n predicting produc t deman d ove r shor t time periods , like 3-months , an

d th e associate d recordkeeping burden .