P. 1 

# OAR Box 1875 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 13 ) ll-E-3 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:44 AM

Sheet 13 of 86P. 2

t. > 

## A-90-1 9 y II-E-3 1 MEETIN G NOTE S DATE : February11 , 199 2 PLACE : Mutua l Building , Durham , N.C . ATTENDEES : ^-~"nl ^ ' ' \

\ V « 

# %%>"" 

# ":v

\ Dal e Brooks , Chevro n W^Xr - ** " o.\Q9 ^ V \ Clayto n R . Freeberg , Chevro n v\ \ nCC , ^ ' \ Bruc e Jordan , EPA\\^ \ «* • **""*'\ \ MaryTomKissell , EP AYv'- \ *.-^ v• li

- ' Penn yLassiter , EPA\ ^I| ^ :: * Daphn e McMurrer , EPA Ja n Meyer , EPA Mar k A . Piersante , Chevro n Joa n W . LaRock , Consultan t t o Chevro n Bo b Rosensteel , EPA SUBJECT : HONREGULATION PURPOS E O F MEETIN

G Th e meetin g wa s hel d a t th e reques t o f Chevro n Corporation . Th e purpos e o f thi s meetin g wa s t o discus s th e provision s o f th e draf t HONregulation . Meetin g attendee s wer e reminde d tha t th e regulatio n i s i n a draf t for

man d mus t stil l underg o Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge t review . Therefore , th e material s presente d a t th e meetin g di d no t necessaril yrepresen t th e fina l for mo f th e propose d regulation . SUMMAR Y O F DISCUSSION Alette r summarizing Chevron' s staff' s concern s serve d a s th e agend a fo r th e meeting . Thi s lette r i s include d i n th e minute s a s Attachmen t 1 . Mos t comment s i n th e Attachmen t 1 wer e discussed . Th e comment s wer e groupe d as : general , wastewater , proces s vents , storag e tanks , transfe r operations , equipmen t leaks , and , emission s averaging . Detaile d comment s fo r eac h grou p o f topic s wer e distribute d durin g th e meetin g (Attachment s 2-8) . Th e comment s ar e a compilatio n o f Chevron' s staff' s comments . Th e meetin g discussio n parallele d th e orde r o f th e comment s a s the ywer e presente d i n th e attachmen t t o th e Chevro n lette r (Attachmen t 1 t o thes e minutes) . Th e minute s ar e organize d i n th e sam e manner . Th e entir e conten t o f Chevron' s staff' sP. 3

* < J comment s i s no t repeate d belo wa s i t i s availabl e i n th e attachments . 1 . Genera l Comment s (Attachmen t 2) . A . EPAShoul d Striv e fo r Consistenc yBetwee n th e HON an d Othe r Standards . Chevro n reiterate d th e nee d fo r consistenc yacros s regulations . Th e compan yfeel s consistenc yi s necessaryfo r headin g of f confusio n an d contradiction s i n compliance . Th e EPAstaf f state d tha t i t ha s bee n thei r inten t t o draf t th e HONt o b e consisten t wit h othe r regulations . Case s whe n th e HONma yno t b e consisten t wit h othe r regulation s ar e when : mor e tha n on e rul e regulatin g th e sam e emissio n point s ar e no t consistent ; and , EPAo r industryha s experience d problem s wit h th e wa ya rul e ha s bee n written . I n th e latte r case , EPAmayno t us e th e sam e wordin g i n a definitio n fo r example , s o tha t pas t confusio n o r complaint s wil l b e avoide d i n th e HON . Whe n pas t rule s ar e no t consistent , EPAcanno t mak e th e HONconsisten t wit h everyregulation . EPAstaf f aske d Chevro n t o forwar d an yinconsistencie s foun d i n th e draf t regulatio n t o EPA . B . Th e Allowe d Tim e Propose d fo r Submitta l o f th e Implementatio n Pla n i s To o Short . Chevro n propose s tha t th e tim e allowe d fo r th e submitta l o f th e implementatio n pla n b e increase d fro m12 0 day s t o a t leas t on e yea r fo r Subpar t G . The yals o expresse d concer n abou t th e implementatio n pla n bein g incorporate d int o th e permi t an d th e resultin g inflexibilitie s whe n modification s t o th e pla n ar e necessary . EPAexplaine d tha t thi s pla n wa s no t envisione d t o b e incorporate d int o th e permi t provision s i n draf t for m sinc e mos t permittin g program s woul d no t ye t b e i n plac e a t th e tim e o f HONcompliance . However , th e tim e fo r submitta l o f th e implementatio n pla n ca n b e reconsidered . C . Estimate d Capita l Cost s Appea r Unrealisticall yLow . Base d o n industryexperienc e installing control s require d b

yth e Benzen e Wast e NESHAP , Chevro n believe s industry' s capita l cost s woul d exceed s estimat e o f $53 0 millio n b

ya s muc h a s fiv e times . Bot h Chevro n an

d EPAagree d tha t withou t specifi c number s an

d assumptions , thi s commen t ca n no t b e adequatel yaddressed . Th e cos t estimat e wa s base d o nP. 4

/ th e dat a availabl e t o EP Aan d use d existin g pee r reviewe d contro l cos t calculations . D . EP AShoul d Addres s Ho wToxicit yShoul d B e Considere d i n Setting MAC T Standards . Th e HONdoe s no t hav e differen t contro l requirement s fo r differen t HAP's . Chevro n recommende d EPAreques t comment s o n thi s issu e whe n th e HONi s proposed . EPAstaf f state d tha t th e absenc e o f indexing fo r toxicit ywa s a polic ydecisio n base d o n th e languag e o f th e 199 0 Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendments . E . Th e Propose d Quarterl yReportin g Requirement s Creat e a n Excessiv e Burden . Chevro n suggeste d a n annua l reporting requirement . EPAresponde d tha t quarterl yreportin g i s a n enforcemen t polic yfo r NESHA P an d tha t n o report s ar e require d i f n o exceedance s exis t fo r th e quarter . F . Increas e i n C O an d NO xEmission s fromCombustio n Technologie s t o Contro l HA P Emission s Appea r Significant . Chevro n staf f state d tha t th e significanc e o f increase d C O an d N0 Xemission s from contro l device s shoul d b e discussed . EPAwil l ad

d a statemen t t o th e preambl e tha t EPA consider s increase d emission s fro mC O an d NO x insignifican t relativ e t o th e tota l inventory . 2 . Wastewate r (Attachmen t 3) . A . Benzen e Wast e NESHAP . Chevro n emphasize d agai n th e nee d fo r consistenc yacros s regulations , i n particular , th e benzen e wast e rule . The ycite d biodegradatio n unit s a s a specifi c exampl e o f potentia l inconsistenc y betwee n benzen e wast e an d th e HON . EP A staf f state d tha t specifi c Chevro n concern s wer e unclear , bu t tha t th e benzen e wast e rul e an d th e HON ar e consistent . Dr . Meye r wil l contac t Chevro n reviewe r Nic k Spiridaki s fo r clarificatio n o f th e issues . B . Poin t o f Generation . Chevro n aske d tha t EPA reconside r th e definitio n o f poin t o f generatio n t o allo wth e optio n o f measurin g VOHA P concentratio n a t th e poin t o f exposur e t o th e atmospher e t o facilitat e sampling .P. 5

/ EPAstaf f note d tha t th e proces s uni t alternativ e treatmen t standar d provide s th e flexibilit yo f measurin g concentratio n a t th e poin t befor e exposur e t o th e atmosphere . Also , th e draf t regulatio n allow s knowledg e o f wastewate r i n lie u o f taking measurement s a s a metho d t o determin e tota l VOHA P averag e concentration . C . Carbo n Adsorbe r Standard . Chevro n aske d tha t th e 95 % efficienc yfo r carbo n adsorber s b e base d o n th e HAP' s liste d i n Tabl e 1 o f th e regulatio n instead o f tota l organics . EPAstaf f responde d tha t Tabl e 1 i s a lis t o f 11 0 organi c HAP' s an

d Tabl e 2 i s a lis t o f 39 9 SOCM I chemicals . EPAstaf f wil l contac t Chevro n reviewe r Nic k Spiridaki s fo r furthe r clarificatio n an d discussio n o f th e issue . D . Recordkeeping . Chevro n suggeste d tha t inspectio n frequency , including visua l inspections , b e decrease d fromquarterl yt o annually . EPAstaf f responde d tha t man yo f thes e inspectio n requirement s ar e th e same a s require d i n NSP S regulations . EPAals o note d tha t th e draf t regulatio n wa s no t mean t t o requir e a separat e 9 0 dayrepor t unles s excursion s occurred . Chevro n staf f wil l suppl yEPAwit h specifi c proble m areas . E . Reportin g Requirements . Discussio n o f reportin g requirement s wa s subsume d b yth e recordkeepin g discussio n i n paragrap h D . above . F . Alternat e Treatmen t Requirements . Chevro n expresse d concer n abou t th e alternativ e treatmen t requiremen t optio n an d ho wi t differ s fromth e othe r treatmen t requiremen t options . EP Astaf f state d tha t the yrecognize d th e draf t regulatio n require d additiona l clarification s an d especiall ys o fo r th e alternat e treatmen t requirements . EPAstaf f supplie d Chevro n staf f wit h a guid e t o th e HONwastewate r provision s (Attachmen t 9) . G . Costs . Chevro n staf f estimate s th e cost s o f implementatio n ar e underestimate d b yEPAb ya n orde r o f magnitude . Th e specifi c model s an d dat a use d b

y Chevro n staf f t o estimat e cost s wer e no t availabl e a tP. 6

/ th e tim e o f th e meeting . Chevro n wil l forwar d specifi c cos t informatio n t o EPA . EPAstaf f note d tha t averag e an d facilit ybase d cos t estimate s ar e no t appropriat e becaus e som e proces s unit s hav e n o wastewate r controls . H . Emission s Averaging . Chevro n support s th e emission s averaging concep t an d i s stil l reviewin g th e requirement s i n th e draf t regulation . I . Researc h an

d Development . Chevro n support s th e exclusio n o f researc h an d developmen t facilitie s fro m th e regulation . 3 . Proces s Vent s (Attachmen t 4) . A . Definitio n o f "Ven t Stream " Shoul d Exclud e Stream s Route d t o Fue l Ga s Systems . Chevro n propose d tha t EP A modif yth e definitio n o f "ven t stream " t o exclud e proces s vent s tha t ar e route d t o a fue l ga s strea m wher e th e fue l ga s i s use d a s th e primaryfue l fo r th e boile r o r proces s heate r operation . EPAstaf f explaine d tha t although ven t stream s route d t o a fue l ga s strea muse d fo r primaryfue l ar e no t exclude d fro

mth e definitio n o f ven t stream s fo r HON , a TR E calculatio n i s no t necessary . TR E calculation s ar e no t necessaryi n genera l whe n vent s stream s ar e route d t o combustio n devices . On e instanc e wher e thi s genera l statemen t i s no t tru e i s whe n emission s averagin g credi t i s take n fo r a vent ; emission s mus t b e calculate d i f th e ven t i s t o b e include d i n emission s averaging . B . Definition s Betwee n Section s Shoul d B e Consistent . Relie f valv e discharge s an d equipmen t leak s ar e exclude d i n th e definitio n o f "relie f valve " i n §63.11 1 o f th e HON . However , i n §63.101 , i t say s tha t relie f valve s discharge s an d leak s regulate d unde r Subpar t H ar e no t regulate d b yth e proces s vent s provision s i n Subpar t G . EP A staf f clarifie d tha t relie f valve s ar e no t proces s vent s fo r th e purpose s o f th e HON . C . Testin g t o Determin e TR E Shoul d No t B e Require d fo r Stream s Alread

yControlled . EPAstaf f agree d tha t TRE' s shoul d no t b e require d fo r stream s alread

ycontrolle d unles s th e ven t wil l use d i nP. 7

emission s averaging . EP Awil l tryt o clarif y regulatorylanguag e befor e proposal . D . EPAShoul d Striv e fo r Consistenc yi n Titl e I an d Titl e II I Contro l Measures . EPAstaf f note d tha t th e onl ydifferenc e betwee n Titl e I an d Titl e II I contro l requirement s ar e applicabilit y criteria . Th e differenc e i n applicabilit ycriteri a i s a n outgrowt h o f th e difference s i n purpos e an d objective s o f Titl e I an d Titl e III . 4 . Storag e Vessel s (Attachmen t 5) . A . N o d e minimis HA P cutoff . Chevro n voice d concer n abou t ho w"impurities " wil l b e define d an d whethe r HAP' s presen t i n lowconcentration s wil l b e exempte d a s impuritie s are . The yals o recommende d a numerica l cutof f fo r exemptio n suc h a s 5 percent . EP Astaf f agree d t o reconside r a quantitativ e definitio n o f impurity . B . Requirement s fo r Existing Floatin g Roo f Tank s Ar e Confusing . EPAstaf f doe s no t understand wha t i s confusin g abou t thi s language . Chevro n wa s aske d t o suppl ymor e detaile d comment s t o hel p pinpoin t th e confusion . C . Difference s an

d Similaritie s o f Propose d Regulatio n t o NSP S Subpar t Kb . Chevro n aske d wh yEPAlowere d ke y parameter s fro

mNSP S Subpar t Kb fo r HON . The yals o foun d th e 7 2 hour s pe r yea r allowe d fo r routin e maintenanc e to o restrictive . EPAstaf f reiterate d tha t NSP S Subpar t Kb i s a Titl e I regulatio n an

d HONi s a Titl e II I regulation . Therefore , a s previousl ydiscussed , th e onl ydifferenc e betwee n Titl e I an

d Titl e II I contro l requirement s ar e applicabilit ycriteri a whic h i s a n outgrowt h o f th e difference s i n purpos e an d objective s o f Titl e I an d Titl e III . D . Genera l Comments . I n th e emission s estimatin g sectio n o f th e draf t regulatio n (pag e 58 7 o f th e Decembe r 24 , 199 1 draft) , "p " i s define d a s th e tru e vapo r pressur e o f th e HAP . Chevro n believe s "p " shoul d b e define d a s th e tru e vapo r pressur e o f th e product .P. 8

EPAstaf f wil l revie wwhethe r "p " shoul d b e define d a s HA P vapo r pressur e o r produc t vapo r pressure . 5 . Transfe r Operation s (Attachmen t 6) . A . EPAShoul d Establis h a de minimis Cutof f fo r Transfe r Operations . Chevro n recommende d tha t EPA : adop t a definitio n fo r impuritie s consisten t wit h th e equipmen t leak s regulation ; and , adop t 340,00 0 gallo n pe r yea r exemptio n leve l fo r annua l loading volum e whic h i s consisten t wit h th e benzen e transfe r NESHAP . EP Astaf f agree d t o reconside r a quantitativ e definitio n o f impurity . B . EPAShoul d Conside r a n Emissio n Rat e Standar d Instea d o f a Percen t Efficienc yStandard . Chevro n recommende d EPAdelet e th e 95/9 8 percen t standar d an d replac e i t wit h a HA P mas s rat e pe r lite r loade d standard . EP Astaf f note d tha t th e draf t regulatio n i s consisten t wit h th e benzen e transfe r rul e an d referre d Chevro n staf f t o th e Marc h 7 , 199 0 Federa l Registe r fo r a mor e in-dept h discussion . C . Responsibilit yfo r Tank Truck/Rai l Ca r Vapo r Tightnes s Shoul d Res t o n Tank Truck/Rai l Ca r Operator . EPAstaf f think s bot h partie s ar e legall yliabl e an d wil l clarif yth e decisio n i n th e preamble . D . Estimate d Cos t Effectivenes s Appear s Unrealisticall yLow . EP Astaf f coul d no t respond t o Chevro n staff' s comment s withou t specifi c knowledg e abou t cos t dat a an d modellin g assumptions . E . Scrubbe r Efficienc yRequiremen t fo r Hydroge n Halides/Halogen s Shoul d B e Lower . Chevro n recommende d a scrubbe r efficienc yo f 9 8 percen t instea d o f th e 9 9 percen t require d i n th e draf t regulation . EPAstaf f aske d tha t Chevro n submi t an yrelevan t dat a fo r EPArevie wan

d evaluation .P. 9

/ 6 . Emission s Averagin g (Attachmen t 7) . A . HONBaselin e Wil l Caus e Reduction s t o b e Postponed . EPAstaf f questione d th e significanc e o f thes e potentia l delay s an d emphasize d tha t onl yth e differenc e betwee n require d emissio n control s an d emission s controlle d mor e stringentl ymayb e include d i n emission s averaging calculations . B . Environmen t Benefit s i f Averagin g I s Allowe d Acros s Sourc e Categories . Chevro n suggeste d tha t EPAallo w emission s averagin g t o includ e an ypoin t withi n th e fenc e lin e o f a contiguou s facility , no t jus t emissio n point s regulate d b

yth e HON . EP Astaf f state d tha t th e Offic e o f Genera l Counse l ha s mad e a lega l finding tha t th e scop e o f averagin g system s i s limite d b ystatu e t o a singl e standard . C . Credi t fo r Certai n Shutdowns . EPAstaf f clarifie d tha t thos e shutdown s associate d wit h pollutio n preventio n woul d b e creditabl e unde r curren t emission s averagin g policy . D . Mandate d "Coo k Book " versu s Case-by-Case . Chevro n commente d tha t case-by-cas e determination s fo r emission s averagin g woul d wor k bette r an d provid e mor e flexibility . EP Astaf f state d tha t fo r emission s averagin g t o remai n enforceabl e an

d palatabl e t o States , th e "coo k book " approac h woul d hav e t o remain . Th e State s ar e concerne d tha t complianc e an d enforcemen t wil l b e greatl ycomplicate d b yth e emission s averagin g provisions . 7 . Equipmen t Leak s (Attachmen t 8) . Equipmen t leak s comment s wer e no t discusse d du e t o tim e constraints .P.1 0 Attachmen t 1
•- >JOANWLAROO C GOVERNMEN T RELATION S CONSULTAN T Februar y 7,199 2 Mr . Bruc e Jorda n Director , Emissio nStandard s Divisio n U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Offic e of Ai r Qualit y Plannin g & Standard s MD-1 3 Researc hTriangl e Park , N C 2771 1 Dear Bruce , M y clien t conducte daquic k

revie w o f th e Decembe r

24,199 1 draf

t o f th e propose d Hazardou s Organi c Nationa l Emissio nStandar dfo r Hazardou s Ai r

Pollutant s (th e HON) . Subpar t

A wa s no t

include di n ou r

package , s o w e wer e unabl e t o refe r t o i t whe nreference di n othe r sections . W e als o di dno t hav e acces s t o th e Backgroun d Informatio nDocument s an dthu s wer e no t abl e t o provid e comment s o n them . Ou r initial , overal l impressio ni s tha t th e propose dHO Ni s cohesiv e bu t ver y complex , an dimpose s cumbersom e reportin g an drecordkeepin g burden s o n industry . Attache dar e specifi c comment s addressin g ou r concerns . A fe w ke y point s fro mou r attache dcomment s ar e a s follows :

• EPA shoul dlengthe nth e tim e allowe dfo r submitta l of

th e implementatio npla nfro m120 day s t o a t leas t on e yea r for Subpar t G .
• EPA shoul dstriv e fo r consistenc y betwee nth e HO Nan dothe r relevan t standard s suc ha s NSPSs , th e Benzen e Wast e NESHAPs , an dCTGs , wher e appropriate .
• Th e baselin e dat e fo r emission s averagin g need s t o b e change dt o allo w credi t for emissio nreduction s tha t occu r befor e th e promulgatio ndat e o f th e MAC T rule , an dafive-year

bankin g provisio nneed s t o b e added .
• W e sugges t

EPAse t astorag e vesse l exemptio na t <5 % tota l HAPs , whic hi s th e exemptio ncutof f for th e equipmen t

lea k regulation , an dwher e appropriate , attemp t

t o mak e provision s elsewher e i n th e rul e consisten t wit hthos e for equipmen t

leak s (Subpar t

H) .
• W e believ e th e EPA' s estimate dcapita l cos t o f $53 0 millio nt o compl y wit hth e HO Ni s unrealisticall y low . W e urg e EPAt o confir mthei r curren t capita l cos t estimat e t o ensur e i t

i s a s realisti c a s possible . W e als o sugges t tha t EPA confirm thei r cos t effectivenes s estimates .

80 1 PENNSYLVANI

A AVENUE , N.W . • SUIT E121 3 • WASHINGTON , D.C . 2000 4 • (202 ) 628-432 2 • FA X (202 ) 628-432 3P.1 1

s Mr . Bruc e Jorda n Pag e 2
M y clien t an dI loo k

forwar dt o discussin g ou r comment s wit hyo u i nmor e detai l o nFebruar y 1 1 a t

10:00 a.m . i nyou r

offic e i nDurham , NC . W e wil l continu e ou r detaile drevie w o

f th e proposa l an dpla nt o pas s o nto yo u an y additiona l comments . W e ar e availabl e a t

you r convenienc e t o discus s an y aspec t o f thi s importan t proposa l wit hyo u an dyou r staff . Than k yo u for th e opportunit y t o provid e yo u wit hcomments . Sincerely , i v JoanW . LaRoc k Attachmen t

### PRELIMINARYCOMMENTS O N TH E DRAF THAZARDOU S ORGANI C NESHA P (HON )

Februar y 11,199 2 GENERA L COMMENT S AEP AShoul d Striv e fo rConsistency
. W e believ e tha t EP

Ashoul d striv e fo rconsistenc ybetwee n th e HO N an d othe rexistin g standards , suc h a s NSPS , Benzen e Wast e NESHAP S an d CTGs
. I fEP Aonl ydepart s fro m regulatorypreceden t wher e i t i s trul ywarranted , th e HO N wil l b e mor e readil yaccepte d b y al l parties . EP

Ashoul d als o conside rextendin g ke yprovision s i n th e equipmen t lea k negotiate d rul e t o othe rpart s o fth e HON
. B Implementatio n Pla n Submitta l Tim e I s To o Short
. EP Ashoul d lengthe n th e tim e allowe d t o submi t Implementatio n Plan s fro m 12 0 day s (pg
. 644 ) t o a t leas t on e yea rfo rSubpart G
. Thi s longe rtim e i s necessaryt o gathe rdata , conduc t sampling , evaluat e complianc e alternatives , an d mak e decision s regardin g th e us e of emission s averaging . Q Estimate d Capita l Cost s Appea rLow . Althoug h w e di d no t have tim e t o estimat e th e capita l cost s associate d wit h implementatio n o f th e HON , w e believ e EP Aestimate d capita l cos t of$53 0 millio n (pg
. 66 ) i s muc h to o low . W e urg e EP

At o develo p cos t estimate s tha t ar e a s realisti ca s possibl e base d o n inpu t fro m impacte d companie s an d trad e organizations . W e als o sugges t tha t EP Aperfor m thei r economi canalysi s o n a cumulativ e rathe rtha n sourc e specifi cbasis . D EP AShoul d Addres s Ho wToxicit yShoul d B e Considere d I n Settin g MAC TStandards
. Th e propose d HO N treat s al l HAP s a s thoug h the yar e o fequa l toxicity . Bu t i n th e Earl y Reductio n Credi t rul e an d th e 112(g ) Modification s rule , toxicit yo fHAP s ar e take n int o account . W e recommen d tha t EP Asolici t commen t i n th e preambl e o n thi s issue , particularl yo n ho wtoxicit yca n b e factore d int o determinin g cos t effectivenes s an d whic h compound s shoul d receiv e mor e stringen t control . E Quarterl yReportin g Requirement s Create s Excessiv e Burden . Althoug h quarterl yreportin g i s require d unde rsevera l exitin g standards , w e believ e tha t th e propose d quarterl yreportin g requirement s fo rSubpart G wil l b e excessive . W e recommen d a n annua l reportin g frequency
. p Increas e i n C O an d NO vEmission s fro m Combustio n Appear s Significant
. EP Aestimate s th e combine d increas e i n C O an d NO xemission s fro m th e us e o f combustio n contro l device s t o b e 20,66 0 ton s pe ryea r(pg
. 65)
. Thi s estimat e ignore s an y increase s i n C O an d NO xemission s resultin g fro m th e us e o fcombustio n device s t o contro l equipmen t leak s an d storag e vessels . Eve n so , th e estimate d increas e appear s significant
. Yet , ther e i s n o discussio n ofth e impac t ofthes e emissions . WASTEWATE R - Thi s sectio n o f th e HO N increase s th e record-keepin g burde n du e t o th e larg e lis t o fchemicals . I n orde rt o mak e th e rul e mor e workable , ther e ar e a numbe ro faspects tha t nee d t o b e improved :P.1 3
/

AHO N Control s Requirement s fo r Benzen e Shoul d B e th e Sam e a s th e Benzen e Wast e

NESHA P (BWN ) Regulation . BW N exempt s enhance d biodegradatio n fro m contro l requirement s a s lon g a s th e inle t concentratio n i s les s tha n 1 0 pp m benzene . Th e HON , o n th e othe rhand , subject s biologica l treatmen t t o th e sam e mas s remova l requirement s a s othe rtreatmen t processes . I f th e HO N i s no t modified , facilitie s ma yb e subjec t t o additiona l contro l requirement s beyon d wha t the yhav e alread ystarte d t o construc t t o compl ywit h th e BWN . B Poin t o

fWast e Generatio n Shoul d B e Move d Downstrea m Coinciden t wit h Actua l Emissio n Points . We recommen d tha t facilitie s tha t no whav e controlle d sewers b e allowe d t o assig n point s of wast e generatio n at actua l emissio n point s sinc e upstrea m point s ar e alread y controlled.I n orde rt o preven t unknowin g dilutio n o fwast e streams , a 1-megagra m facility wid e limi t migh t b e applie d t o th e treatmen t syste m effluent
. Q Th e Standar d fo r Carbo n Adsorptio n Include s Compound s Whic h Are Not Containe d i n Tabl e I (Organi c Hazardou s Ai r Pollutants) . Propan e an d butan e ar e no t liste d i n Tabl e I (pg. 316 ) an d shoul d no t b e covere d i n th e adsorptio n standar d sinc e thes e substance s ar e no t HAPs . Thes e tw o compound s ar e no t readil yadsorbe d b ycarbo n an d includin g the m woul d mak e complianc e difficult
. Q Th e Frequenc y o fInspectio n an d Reportin g Are Not Justified . Onc e a facilit yha s installe d equipmen t t o trea t VOHA P i n wastewate rstreams , th e benefi t derive d fro m frequen t inspection s o fincidenta l source s i s questionable . W e recommen d tha t yearl yinspection s an d exceptio n reportin g b e implemente d rathe rtha n th e propose d quarterl yinspectio n an d reporting . E Th e Detai l an d Volum e o fDat a Require d i n 9 0 Day s I s Unrealistic . Th e requiremen t t o submi t initia l dat a withi n 9 0 day s (pg
. 574 ) i s inconsisten t wit h th e 12 0 da yrequirement s fo rth e othe rHA P sources . We recommen d extendin g th e dat a generation phas e t o a yea ro rreduc e th e detai l an d volum e o fdata . W e urg e EP At o examin e th e benefi t of providin g flo wdiagram s befor e th e complianc e date . Th e volum e of dat a require d woul d impos e enormou s burden s o n bot h th e regulate d communit yt o produc e an d EP

At o proces s withou t correspondin g benefits
. p Th e Standar d fo rTreatin g Wast e Stream s Combine d "Within " Proces s Unit s I s Inconsisten t wit h tha t fo r"Downstream " o fUnits . We recommen d tha t EP Aad d th e option s o fprovidin g a strea m strippe ro rrequirin g 99 % mas s remova l afte rdeterminin g whic h wastewate rstream s withi n th e proces s uni t wer e abov e 50 0 pp m tota l VOHAP
. Thi s woul d b e consisten t wit h th e standar d fo rcombinin g stream s downstrea m of proces s units . Q Cost s t o Compl y wit h th e Wastewate r Sectio n Are Understated . Th e averag e facilit ycapita l expenditur e o f$570,00 0 i s lo wconsiderin g th e numbe ro f stream s an d requirements . On e stea m strippe ri s likel yt o cos t i n exces s o f$1,000,000
. Th e tota l expenditur e fo ron e facilit ycoul d easil yexcee d $5,000,00 0 o rmore . Economi c analysi s shoul d b e o n a cumulativ e rathe rtha n sourc e specifi cbasis . Otherwise , eac h sourc e ca n see m t o hav e a mino rimpac t independentl ywhil e th e tota l cos t o fal l source s i s high .P.1 4

PROCES S VENT S ADefinitio n o f "Ven t Stream " Shoul d Exclud e Stream s Route d t o Fue l Ga s Systems
. I n th e HON , ven t stream s tha t ar e mixe d wit h primaryfue l t o a boile ro rproces s heate rar e exemp t fro m performanc e testin g an d monitorin g becaus e EPAbelieve s thes e situation s alread yprovid e 98 % control . W e agree . And , EP Ashoul d reduc e th e reportin g burde n furthe r(e.g. , TR E determination ) b ymodifyin g th e "ven t stream " definitio n t o exclud e stream s route d t o fue l ga s system s tha t fue l boiler s an d proces s heaters sinc e thes e stream s ar e alread yadequatel ycontrolled . • Definition s Betwee n Section s Shoul d B e Consistent
.

IV . Th e definitio n fo r"ven t stream " i n Sectio n 63.11 1 contain s a n exclusio n fo rrelie fvalv e

discharge s an d equipmen t leaks . However , o n pag e 4 5 an d i n Sectio n 63.101 , statement s ar e mad e tha t proces s vent s exclud e relie fvalv e discharge s an d leak s regulate d unde r Subpart H . Th e latte rphras e shoul d b e delete d s o a H relie fvalv e discharge s an d equipmen t leaks ar e exclude d regardles s ofwhethe rthe yar e regulate d unde rth e HO N equipmen t leaks provisions . Q Testin g t o Determin e TR E Shoul d No t B e Require d fo rStream s Alread yControlled
. Th e propose d HO N require s initia l testin g o fal l ven t stream s t o determin e whic h one s ar e d e minimis

(exemp t fro m HO N controls ) fro m thos e subjec t t o controls . Stream s tha t ar e alread ycontrolle d shoul d no t b e require d t o perfor m th e initia l testin g t o determin e th e TR E inde xvalues . D EPAShoul d Striv e fo rConsistenc yi n Titl e I an d III Contro l Measures . T o avoi d confusio n fo rindustryan d stat e regulators , EP Ashoul d onl ycreat e difference s betwee n NSPS/CT G an d HO N wher e i t i s trul ywarranted . Tw o inconsistencie s tha t nee d t o b e addresse d are : 1 . SOCM I definitio n i n th e CTG fo rSOCM I distillatio n an d reacto rprocesse s need s t o b e clarifie d a s i n th e HON , whic h clearl yexclude s refineryprocesses . 2 . Th e propose d NSP S fo rSOCM I reacto rprocesse s an d th e NSP S fo rSOCM I distillatio n operation s requir e performanc e testin g an d temperatur e monitorin g fo r boilers/heater s smalle rtha n 4 4 megawatts . Thes e NSPS s shoul d b e change d t o reflect EPA' s ne wthinkin g i n th e HO N tha t a H boilers/heate rar e exemp t fro m suc h testin g an d monitorin g wher e th e ven t strea m i s mixe d wit h th e primaryfuel
. STORAG E TANK S ; ' ADe

minimis HA P Conten t Shoul d B e Specified
. Th e HO N exempt s tank s tha t stor e stock s tha t contai n organi cHAP s a s impuritie s (pg.46)
. "Impurities " i s ill-defined
. W e sugges t tha t EP Ase t th e tan k

exemptio n at <5 % tota l HAPs , whic h i s th e exemptio n cutof fi n th e equipmen t lea k sectio n o fth e HON
. B Mus t Existin g Externa l Floating-Roo fTank s B e Converte d t o Internal ? Th e HO N state s o n pag e 403 , "A n existin g externa l floating-roo fvesse l shal l b e converte d t o a n interna l floating-roo fvessel. " W e sugges t tha t EP Aclarif ythi s sectio n t o allo wothe r contro l option s outline d i n th e HO N (e.g
. externa l floating-roo ftan k wit h secondaryseal s

-3 -P.1 5

an d controlle d fittings , close d ven t syste m wit h contro l device , o requivalent)
. W e assum e tha t w e woul d no t b e require d t o convert al l existin g externa l floating-roo ftanks t o interna l a s thi s woul d b e ver

yonerous .

vTRANSFE R OPERATION S

VI . AEP AShoul d Establis h a De Minimis HA P Cutof ffo rTransfe rOperations
. Th e HO N cover s terminal s whic h loa d mor e tha n 170,0 0 gallon s pe ryea ro fHAP s wit h a vapo rpressur e o f 1. 5 ps i an d greater . Stock s wit h onl yHA P impuritie s ar e exempt , bu t th e impurit yleve l i s no t defined
. W e recommen d tha t EP Aadop t a definitio n whic h i s consisten t wit h th e equipmen t lea k par t ofHO N - 5 % tota l HAP s a s th e d e minimis cutoff
. Th e propose d exemptio n leve l fo rth e annua l loadin g volum e i s significantl ylowe rtha n th e Benzen e Transfe rNESHAP
. W e recommen d tha t EP Aadop t th e 340,00 0 gallo n pe ryea r throughpu t exemptio n fo rth e HO N t o b e consisten t wit h th e Benzen e NESHAP
. B Percen t Efficienc yv s Emissio n Rat e Standard
. Ove rth e las t 2 0 year s th e contro l standar d fo rgasolin e marketin g ha s shifte d fro m a percentag e basi s t o a n emissio n rat e basi s (e.g. , 35mg/ l NSP S fo rBul k Terminals ) becaus e it' s easie rfo rperformanc e testing . Fo rthi s reaso n an d consistenc ywit h existin g loadin g regulations , w e recommen d tha t EP Adelet e th e 95%/98 % standar d an d instea d se t a mas s HA P rat e pe rlite rloaded . Q Responsibilit yfo rVapo rTightnes s o fCarg o Vesse l Shoul d Res t O n Tan k Truck/Rai l Ca rOperator
. Owner s an d operator s ofSOCM I facilitie s rel yheavil yo n thir d part yoperator s o ftan k truck s an d railcar s t o handl e transportatio n o fchemica l products . W e therefor e believ e th e responsibilit yfo rensurin g th e vapo rtightnes s shoul d res t o n th e owner/operato ro fth e tan k truc k o rrai l car . Thi s ca n b e don e b yprovidin g documentatio n t o th e plan t operato rtha t ai l truck s o rrailcar s bein g loade d ar e certifie d a s vapor-tight . D Estimate d Cos t Effectivenes s Appear s Unrealisticall yLow . W e wer e unabl e t o evaluat e EPA' s estimate d cos t effectivenes s o f$10,00 0 pe rton , becaus e EP Adi d no t provid e a detaile d cos t breakdown . However , base d o n ou rexperienc e wit h tan k truc k loadin g terminal s fo rsmal l transfe roperations , w e believ e EPA' s estimate d cos t effectivenes s i s to o low . W e urg e EP At o revie wthei restimat e t o ensur e th e estimate d cos t effectivenes s i s a s realisti ca s possible . EQUIPMEN TLEAKS AEquipmen t Lea k Contro l I s No t a "Cos t Savings. " W e d o no t believ e contro l o femission s fro m equipmen t leak s represen t a ne t cos t saving s (pg
. 69)
. I n mos t case s th e valu e ofproduc t save d i s smal l compare d t o th e cos t of "Inspectio n an d Maintenance " programs . B Emission s Ca n B e Quantifie d fro m Equipmen t Leaks . W e believ e emission s ca n b e calculate d fro m fugitiv e equipmen t leaks . Th e HO N implie s tha t emission s averagin g canno t b e use d fo rthes e source s becaus e th e emission s canno t b e quantifie d (pg
. 166)
. Th e regulation s shoul d stat e tha t equipmen t leaks canno t b e use d fo remission s averagin g becaus e th e negotiatin g committe e coul d no t agre e o n thi s issue .P.1 6

C . Mino r Corrections . Th e equipmen t lea k

regulatio n i s th e sam e a s th e negotiate d agreement , bu t ther e ar e som e typographica l errors . We wil l provid e yo u a lis t o fthos e errors . VII . EMISSION S AVERAGIN G

APropose d Baselin e Wil l Caus e Emissio n Reduction s t o B e Postponed . Th e HO N propose s no t t o allo wcredi t fo remissio n reduction s tha t occu rbefor e th e promulgatio n dat e of th e MACTrule . Thi s create s a disincentiv e fo rindustryt o implemen t earl yreductions , an d som e companie s mayeve n pul l ou t ofEPA' s 33/5 0 Progra m becaus e of thi s baselin e issue . W e recommen d tha t EP Aad d a 5-yea rbankin g provisio n tha t allow s industryt o reduc e emission s whe n th e opportunit yarise s an d no t b e force d t o wai t unti l th e MACTrul e i s finalized
. Th e baselin e perio d coul d b e th e tim e whe n th e credi t applicatio n i s submitted . Anothe rbaselin e optio n i s 199 0 whe n th e Clea n Ai rAct wa s enacted . B Th e Environmen t Ca n Benefi t Mor e I fAveragin g I s Allowe d Acros s Sourc e Categories . Wit h th e propose d discoun t facto rprovision , th e averagin g approac h wil l creat e mor e reduction s tha n straigh t MACT
. Therefore , EP Ashoul d encourag e mor e "bubbling " b y allowin g facilitie s t o reduc e emission s acros s differen t sourc e categorie s i fth e emissio n point s ar e withi n th e fencelin e ofth e facility , suc h a s allowe d i n th e Earl yReductio n Credi t rule . EP Astate s i n th e HO N (p g 166) tha t th e Act' s "floo rrequirement " fo rMACTprevent s EP Afro m allowin g averagin g acros s sourc e categories . W e rea d th e statutorylanguag e a s givin g EP

Amuc h discretio n i n thi s area . W e recommen d tha t EP Aallo waveragin g acros s categories . A n additiona l benefi t i s tha t othe rsource s ma yb e discovere d tha t woul d otherwis e remai n uncontrolled . Q EPA Shoul d Give Credi t fo r Certai n Shutdowns . Th e HO N disallow s credi t fo ran yshutdowns , whil e th e criteri a pollutan t tradin g polic y allow s credi t fo rcertai n shutdowns , suc h a s replacement s o rfutur e shutdown s tha t receive d prio ragenc yreview . EP Ashoul d retai n th e principle s i n th e criteri a pollutan t tradin g polic y tha t evolve d ove rth e las t decad e afte rmuc h give-and-tak e fro m al l parties . 0 Mandate d "Coo k Book " vs Case-by-Case . Th e HO N include s a ver ycomple xemissio n accountin g syste m wit h fixe d contro l efficiencie s an d emissio n estimatin g equations . W e recommen d tha t EPAno t dictat e a single , rigi d formula
. I t wil l b e unde rconstan t attac k an d requir e frequen t updates . EP A shoul d se t ke yprinciples , suc h a s "quantifiable " an d "enforceable, " an d pu t th e burde n o n industryt o mee t thos e parameters . Settin g contro l efficiencie s remove s incentive s fo r industryt o improv e performance
.

-5 -Attachmen t 2

ATTACHMEN T I GENERA LCOMMENT S Our comment s o nth e propose dHO Nar e base do narathe r quic k revie w of

th e approximatel y 80 0 pages . A s w e hav e achanc e to revie w i t i ngreate r

detail , w e wil l likel y discove r othe r issue s and concerns . Subpart

A was no t

include di nth e HO Npackag e w e received , s o w e wer e unabl e to refe r to i t whe nreference di nothe r sections . W e wer e als o abl e to revie w th e tes t method s specifie di nth e proposal onl y briefly , bu t wil l revie w the minmor e detai l inth e near future . Sinc e th e HO Ni s ver

y complex , EP A may wan t to conside r

developin g concise , but

detaile dsummarie s of th e specifi c requirement s to facilitate review . A . EPAShoul dStriv e fo r Consistenc y Betwee nth e HO Nan dothe r Standards . W e believ e EP A shoul dstriv e t o mak e th e HO Nconsisten t withothe r

existin g regulation s an dstandards . W e understan dth e EP Aha s use dexistin g criteri a pollutan t regulation s (eg ; NSPS ) a s areferenc e indevelopin g th e HON , an dw e fully endors e thi s approach. I nfact , w e recommen dthat EP A no t depart fro mthos e well-establishe drequirement s unles s EP Aca nclearl y justif y th e difference . Coordinatio nbetwee nTitl e I an dTitle II I control s wil l b e muc heasie r if th e actual requirement s ar e a s similar a s possible . Thi s wil l make thing s les s confusin g to stat e regulator s an dindustry . Area s tha t ca nb e mad e more consisten t include :

• Instea do f

a"percentag e control " typ e emissio nstandard , th e HO Nshoul d us e amas s limi t

a s inth e NSP S for

Gasolin e Bul k

Terminals .
• Th e baselin e perio dan dbankin g provision s specifie dinth e criteri apollutan t tradin g polic y shoul db e use dinth e HON' s emissio naveragin g provisions .
• Th e throughpu t

an dequipmen t

siz e cutoff

s inrespectiv e NSPS s shoul db e th e sam e inHO Nunles s th e nee dfor achang e i s clearl y demonstrated .
• Th e equipmen t

lea k standar d(Subpart

H ) applie s to equipmen t

containin g or contactin g proces s material s that are 5 % o r

greate r VHAP . W e recommen d usin g thi s criterio ninSubpar t Gwher e appropriat e for source s suc ha s storag e vessel s an dtransfe r operations . Sinc e th e concept s inSubpart H wer e agree dt o b y anegotiatin g committee , ther e i s preceden t that the y ar e acceptabl e t o anumbe r o f interes t groups . W e believ e Subpar t Ga s propose dcanb e improve db y incorporatin g som e of th e concept s containe d inSubpart

H . B . Th e Allowe dTim e Propose dfor Submitta l of

th e Implementatio nPlani s To o Short . A s proposed , asource-specifi c implementatio nplanfor existin g source s mus t

b e submitte dwithi n12 0 day s of promulgatio no f

th e final HO N(p . 644) . Eac h emissio npoin t

mus t b e identifie da s t o it s locatio nan dwhethe r i t i s aGrou p 1 o r Grou p 2 emissio npoint . Fo r proces s vents , actua l sourc e testin g i s require dto obtai nth e informatio nneede dt o calculat e th e TR Einde x value . Othe r dat aan d 1- 1P.1 8

HO NPROPOSA L Detaile dComment s Pag e 2 informatio ni s require dinorde r to evaluat e complianc e alternative s an ddetermin e i f i t i s beneficial to us e emission s averaging . W e believ e th e tim e allowe dfor submitta l of

th e implementatio npla nshoul db e increase dfromth e propose d120 day s t o at leas t on e year fo r Subpart G . Thi s wil l ensur e that

afacility ha s th e tim e i t

need s to develo p a

neffectiv e implementatio n plan . C . Estimate dCapital Cost s Appea r Unrealisticall v Low . EP A estimate s th e capita l cost s to compl y wit hth e HO Nar e $53 0 millio n(p . 66) . W e believ e thi s estimat e i s unrealisticall y low , basedo nou r experienc e with installin g control s require dby Benzen e Wast e NESHAPS . It woul dtherefore see m that industry' s capita l cost s to compl y for th e entir e SOCM I wil l b e perhap s five time s a s hig hth e EP Aestimate . W e urg e th e EP A to revisi t thei r estimat e o f

th e capita l cost s t o mak e sur e the y ar e a s realisti c a s possible . W e sugges t that th e estimat e b e base do ninpu t fromth e SOCM I an dtrad e associations . W e woul db e happ y to wor k directl y withEP Ao n thi s issue . D . EP A Shoul dAddres s Ho w Toxicit y Shoul dB e Considere dinSettin g MAC T Standards . Th e propose dHO Ntreat s al l HAP s a s thoug hthey ar e of equa l toxicity . However , inth e Earl y Reductio nCredi t rul e an dSectio n112(g ) Modification s rule , th e toxicity o f

th e HAP s ar e take nint o account . W e strongl y recommen dthat EP A solici t commen t

o nthi s issu e inth e preambl e of th e propose dHON . Inparticular , w e sugges t

EP A solici t

commen t on , an devaluate how , toxicity canb e factore dinto th e determinatio no f

cos t effectiveness . EP Ashoul dals o evaluat e whic hHAP s requir e mor e stringen t

control . E . Th e Propose dQuarterl y Reportin g Requirement s Creat e a nExcessiv e Burden . Althoug hquarterl y reportin g i s require dunde r severa l existin g standards , w e believ e that

th e propose dquarterl y reportin g for Subpart Gi s abi t excessive . Thi s i s primaril y du e to th e volum e o f informatio nrequire dan dth e numbe r of chemical s whic har e covere db y th e proposal , som e whic hmay b e presen t onl y intrac e amounts . Ongoin g chemica l analyse s ma y b e necessary t o obtai nth e informatio n require dfor

th e quarterl y report . W e sugges t tha t EPA conside r

a nannua l reportin g interva l for

Subpart G . F . Increas e i nC O an dNO X Emission s fro mus e o f Combustio nTechnologie s to Contro l HA PEmission s i s Significan t Th e EP Aha s estimate dth e increas e i nC O an dNO X emission s resultin g fromth e us e of combustio ntechnologies that wil l b e use dfor

HA Pcontro l to b e 20,66 0 ton s 1- 2P.1 9

HO NPROPOSA

L Detaile dComment

s Page 3 pe r yea r (p . 65) . However , thi s ignore s an y increase s i

nC O an dNO X emission s resulting fro

mthe us e o

f combustiontechnologie s t o contro l equipmen

t leak s an d storag e vessels . Ther

e shouldbe som

e C O an dNO X emission s resultin g fro

m contro l o f thes e sources . However , we believ e tha

t eve nthe current

estimat e o f increasedC O andNO

X emission s i s significant . Ther e shouldb e som

e discussiona s t

o the significanc e o

f thes e emissions .

1- 3Attachmen t 3

WASTEWATE

RHO NCOMMENT S
A . Benzen e Wast e NESHA P (BWN ) SOCM I facilitie s ar e currentl ydealin g wit h complianc e aspect s o f BWN . I t i s extremel yimportan t tha t EP Atake s a consisten t approac h i n th e HO Nand BW Nwit h regar d t o wastewate r operation s t o preven t duplicatio n o f wor k and havin g t o modif yo r remov e contro l equipmen t installe d t o compl ywit h BWN . Sinc e ther e wil l b e a t leas t a thre e yea r la g betwee n complianc e date s fo r th e tw o regulations , facilitie s canno t bas e today' s decision s o n tomorrow' s requirement s unles s ther e i s a clea r understandin g o f wha t thos e requirement s wil l be . B yapplyin g a consisten t approac h t o contro l requirement s th e environmen t ca n b e protecte d withou t duplicatin g mone yand effort . Sinc e th e oi l refinin g industryi s als o subjec t t o BW Nand wil l b e subjec t t o it s ow n HO Neve n furthe r i n th e futur e tha n SOCM I plants , ther e i s eve n les s reliabilit yi n predictin g th e future . Consistenc yher e i s vital . Aspecifi c are a o f inconsistenc yi s th e issu e o f biodegradation . I n BWN , a n enhance d biodegradatio n uni t i s exemp t fromcontrol s i f th e inle t benzen e concentratio n i s les s tha n 1 0 ppm . I n th e HON , o n th e othe r hand , a biodegradatio n uni t i s require d t o demonstrat e require d mas s removal . W e sugges t tha t concentratio n base d guideline s ma yb e develope d b yEP At o allo wa simila r exemptio n accordin g t o tota l VOHA P concentration . B . Poin t o f Wast e Generation Th e definitio n o f "th e poin t o f wast e generation " i n th e regulatio n i t i s necessitate s samplin g and analyzin g eac h wastewate r strea ma s i t leave s th e proces s and befor e i t i s mixe d wit h othe r stream s o r expose d t o th e atmosphere . Thi s definitio n i s consisten t wit h BWN . Becaus e o f BWN , manyfacilitie s hav e sample d thes e stream s and hav e since , o r wil l be , combinin g and/o r hardpipin g th e stream s s o tha t i t i s eithe r impossibl e o r nearl ys o t o obtai n sample s require d fo r th e HON . Also , i n manycase s ther e i s n o opportunit yfo r emissio n t o atmospher e t o occu r becaus e o f th e us e o f close d systems . W e sugges t tha t facilitie s b e give n th e optio n o f measurin g th e VOHA P concentratio n a t th e poin t o f firs t exposur e t o atmospher e fo r thos e instance s wher e upstreamsample s d o no t ad d additiona l o r uniqu e information . Fo r thi s option , EP Aca n impos e th e facilit y wid e limi t o f 1 megagrampe r yea r o n tota l VOHA P measure d a t th e downstream

effluen t point . Thi s woul d obviat e EPA' s concer n ove r usin g dilutio n a s a mean s o f complying .P.2 1

C . Carbo

nAdsorbe r Standard Th e regulatio

nspecifie s tha t a carbo nadsorbe r contro l devic e shal l hav

e a nefficiency

o f 95 % tota l organics , not includin g methane an

dethane . However , the definitio nfo r referenc e contro l technolog

y state s tha t 95 % HA P mus t be remove dina carbo

n adsorber . W

e sugges t tha t the basi s be set a s 95 % Tabl e I organi c hazardou s ai r pollutants . I f thi s basi s i s adopte di t woul dnot requir e measurin

g non-hazardou s compound s whichare no t readil y adsorbedo

ncarbon , suc

ha s propane an

dbutane . D . RecordKeepin

g Th e draf t regulatio

nrequire s a facility t o perfor

m quarterl y inspection s an

dt o fil e quarterl y reports . For a naffected facility

thi s woul dresul t i nver y hig hcost s withou t correspondin g benefit . Onc e a facility ha s installedequipmen t t o trea t VOHA P in wastewate r stream

s the benefi t derivedfro m frequent inspection s o n incidenta l source s i s questionable . A s a nalternativ

e w e sugges t tha t w e initiall y

the inspectio

nan dreportin

g schedul e be les s frequent but subjec t t o modificationi f dat a s o warrant . Specifically , w

e sugges t tha t a-facilit y perfor m yearl y inspectio

n an drepor t exception s t o the standards . E . Reportin

g Requirement s Th e regulatio

nwoul drequir e tha t a facility submi t bot hflo

w diagram s an ddetailedproces s informatio nwithi n9 0 day s afte r th e effectiv

e date . Th

e BW N similarl y

requiredtha t a complet e listin g o f stream

s an dapplicability

be submittedwithi n9 0 days . Man y facilitie s foun

di t wa s impossibl e t o complet e th e inventory , sampling , analytica l an ddat a reductio

ntask s sinc e ther e wer e literall y

thousand s o f stream s whichrequireddocumentation . A s a result , man

y facilitie s hadt o submi t amendedreport s subsequent t o the 9 0 da

y requirement . O f course , i nBW N the only

chemica l o f concer nwa s benzene . I t i s expectedtha t complianc e wit hth e reportin

g provision s o f the HO N wil l be evenmor e problematica l fo r severa l reasons . First , mor e stream s ar e impacte

db y the regulatio

nan dman y mor e chemical s wil l hav e t o be analyzed . Facilitie s wil l als o b e using a ne w method(25D ) whichwil l probabl y

hav e som e implementatio

nproblems . Finally , the additiona l stipulatio nt o provid e flo

w diagram

s o f the complet e sewe r system

s wil l b e a ver

y labor intensiv

e an dtim e consumin

g task . Sinc e al l the stream s wil l be documentedflo w diagram

s woul d hav e dubiou s value . Sinc e the recordkeepin g burdeni s increased w e sugges t a s a

nalternativ

e tha t strea

m table s ca

nbe providedi

n si xmonth s afte r promulgationan dtha t the issue o f the needfo r flo w diagram

s b e revisitedb

y EPA . I nan

y case , ther e doe s no t appear t o be an

y significan t benefi t t o providin g thos e diagram s befor e the actua l regulatio ncomplianc e date .P.2 2

F . Alternat e Treatmen t Reguirement s A s currentl ypropose d th e standar d fo r treatin g wast e stream s combine d withi n proces s unit s i s differen t tha n th e standar d fo r wastewate r stream s combine d downstreamo f proces s units . Specifically , th e cutof f fo r in-proces s combinatio n i s 1 0 ppmtota l VOHA P whil e i t i s 50 0 ppm tota l VOHA P fo r downstrea m combination . Thi s i s done , apparently , t o avoi d dilutio n o f wast e streams . Fo r stream s les s tha n 100 0 ppmtota l VOHA P thi s ca n resul t i n <99 % remova l requirement . Fo r stream s greate r tha n 100 0 ppmVOHA P remova l requirement s woul d b e > 99% . Thi s i s becaus e th e remova l requiremen t i s a strea mcontainin g < 1 0 ppmtota l VOHAP . W e sugges t tha t th e requiremen t shoul d b e consisten t throughou t th e regulation . Thi s ca n b e don e b yaddin g th e option s o f providin g a stea mstrippe r o r requirin g 99 % mas s remova l afte r determinin g whic h wastewate r stream s withi n th e proces s uni t wer e abov e 50 0 ppm tota l VOHAP . G . CQ8t 8 Overall , th e cos t estimate s t o compl ywit h th e wastewate r sectio n appea r overl yoptimistic . Assumin g EPA' s estimat e tha t 34 0 facilitie s woul d b e impacted , th e averag e capita l expenditur e pe r facilit ywoul d b e $570,000 . Base d o n th e experienc e i n complyin g wit h BW

Nthi s numbe r ma yb e unde r estimate d b ya n orde r o f magnitude . Additionally , i n discussin g th e economi c impac t o n wastewate r facilitie s th e regulatio n consider s sourc e specifi c economi c impact s only . Thi s typ e o f analysi s understate s th e importanc e o f eac h sourc e contributio n sinc e i t doe s conside r th e economi c impac t o f th e regulatio n a s a whole . W e sugges t tha t th e economi c impact s should , instead , b e base d o n a cumulativ e analysis .
H . Emission s Averagin g I n genera l w e suppor t th e concep t o f emission s averagin g and off
sets . W e recogniz e tha t mor e tim e need s t o b e devote d t o th e actua l proposal s and calculatio n procedure s befor e w e ca n fee l mor e comfortabl e wit h thi s sectio n o f th e regulation .
I . Researchan

dDevelopmen t W e suppor t th e exclusio n o f R& D facilitie s from th e regulation .
ho n 2-92 aP.2 3 Attachmen t 4 ATTACHMEN TII I PROCES S VENT S A . DEFINITIO N O F "VEN TSTREAM " SHOUL D EXCLUD E STREAM S ROUTE D T O FUE L GA S SYSTEMS
. Unde rth e propose d HON , an yven t strea m tha t i s mixe d wit h th e primar yfue l t o a boile r o rproces s heate ri s exemp t fro m th e initia l performanc e tes t an d temperatur e monitorin g requirement s regardles s o fsiz e (+/ - 4 4 megawatts ) becaus e availabl e informatio n show s tha t boiler s an d proces s heater s achiev e 98 % reductio n i n th e organi cconten t o fth e proces s ven t strea m (page s 13 3 an d 136)
. EP Aha s determine d tha t managemen t o f th e ven t strea m i n thi s manne rcomplie s wit h th e propose d emissio n reductio n standard s an d tha t furthe revaluatio n throug h performanc e testin g o r monitorin g i s no t required . Base d o n thi s information , EP Ashoul d reduc e th e reportin g burde n furthe r(e.g. , TR E determination ) b ymodifyin g th e definitio n o f"ven t stream " containe d i n 63.10 1 an d 63.11 1 t o exclud e proces s vent s tha t ar e route d t o a fue l ga s syste m wher e th e fue l ga s i s use d a s th e primaryfue l fo rth e boile ro rproces s heate roperatio n sinc e EP Aha s determine d tha t the yar e alread yadequatel ycontrolled . B . DEFINITION S BETWEE N SECTION S SHOUL D B E CONSISTENT
. Th e definitio n fo r"ven t stream " i n Sectio n 63.11 1 contain s a n exclusio n fo rrelie fvalv e discharge s an d equipmen t leaks . Howeve ro n pag e 4 5 i n Sectio n 63.101 , statement s are mad e tha t proces s vent s exclud e relie fvalv e discharge s an d leak s regulate d unde r Subpar t H . Thes e definition s shoul d b e reviewe d fo rconsistencyan d modifie d t o ensur e tha t ai l relie f valv e discharge s an d equipmen t leak s ar e exclude d regardles s o f whethe r the yar e regulate d unde rth e HO N equipmen t leak s provisions . C
. TESTIN G T O DETERMIN E TR E SHOUL D NO TB E REQUIRE D FO R STREAM S ALREAD YCONTROLLED
. A n initia l tes t i s require d fo ral l proces s ven t stream s t o obtai n th e informatio n necessar yt o calculat e th e TR E (Tota l Resourc e Effectiveness ) inde xvalue . Th e TR E Inde x Valu e i s use d t o determin e whethe rth e ven t i s a Grou p 1 (TR E < 1.0) o rGrou p 2 (TR E > 1.0 ) proces s vent . Grou p 1 proces s vent s mus t reduc e emission s o f organi cHA P usin g a contro l devic e (flare , proces s heater , boiler ) o rincreas e th e TR E t o greate rtha n 1. 0 b y addin g a produc t recover ydevic e (suc h a s a n absorber , carbo n adsorber , o rcondenser ) o rsimila rdevice . Grou p 2 proces s vent s ar e no t subjec t t o th e emissio n contro l requirements . Existin g source s whic h ar e currentl ycontrollin g proces s vent s pe rth e propose d standard s shoul d no t b e require d t o conduc t a n initia l tes t t o calculat e th e TR E index . Thes e proces s vent s woul d automaticall yb e considere d Grou p 1 vent s unles s otherwis e demonstrated . Ane wsourc e shoul d onl yb e require d t o calculat e th e TR E inde xvalu e i fa
111- 1P.2 4

product recoverydevic e i s use d t o reduc e emission s o rt o justif ytha t a particula rven t strea m doe s no t requir e th e additio n o femissio n controls . D . EP A SHOUL D STRIV E FO R CONSISTENC YI N TITL E I AN D II I CONTRO L MEASURES . O n Decembe r12 , 1991 , EP Arelease d fo rpubli crevie wth e Contro l Techniqu e Guideline s (CTG's ) fo rSOCM I Distillatio n Operation s an d SOCM I Reacto rProcesses . Base d o n a revie wo f th e CT G an d th e propose d SOCM I HO N fo rproces s vents , th e followin g issue s regardin g potentia l overla p ar e raised : Definitio n o f SOCMI : Th e broa d definitio n o f SOCM I containe d i n th e CT G coul d possibl y dra wi n processe s tha t hav e no t bee n traditionall yconsidere d a s SOCM I processes . T o avoi d confusio n o n th e part o f th e regulate d community , EP Ashoul d adop t a consisten t definitio n o f SOCM I processe s tha t specificall yexclude s refiner yprocesse s a s par

t o f th e CT G an d th e HO N MAC Tstandards . Thi s woul d allo wfo ra clea rdefinitio n o fwhic h processe s ar e covere d an d woul d b e consisten t wit h th e tentativ e schedul e fo rrefiner y MACT
. Fo rpurpose s o f th e SOCM I HON , petroleu m refiner yprocesse s ar e no t par t o fth e SOCM I sourc e categoryeve n i f on e o fth e processe s produc e feedstock s tha t are supplie d t o a SOCM I chemica l manufacturin g process . Example s o frefiner yprocesse s no t covere d b y th e HO N wa s develope d a s part o f th e equipmen t leaks negotiate d standard s (se e attache d list)
. Aseparat e HO N wil l b e develope d fo rpetroleu m refineries
. Th e propose d refiner y HO N includin g proces s vent s i s expecte d t o b e issue d lat e November , 1993 . Fo rpurpose s o f th e CTG , th e definitio n o f SOCM I i s muc h more genera l an d include s an yproces s that produce s o ruse s a chemica l liste d i n th e propose d guideline . Facilitie s locate d i n non attainmen t area s mus t b e i n complianc e wit h th e CT G standard s b yMay , 1995 . Potentia l Difference s i n Requirements : Unde rth e propose d HON , an yven t strea m tha t i s mixe d wit h th e primaryfue l t o a boile ro rproces s heate ri s exemp t fro m th e initia l performanc e tes t an d temperatur e monitorin g requirement s regardles s o fsiz e (+/ - 4 4 megawatts)
. EPA ha s determine d tha t managemen t o f th e ven t strea m i n thi s manne r complie s wit h th e contro l requirement s (achieve s 98 % reduction ) an d tha t furthe r performanc e testin g an d monitorin g i s no t required . O n page s 13 3 an d 136 , th e statemen t i s mad e tha t th e propose d SOCM I reacto rproces s NSP S (Subpart RRR ) wil l requir e testin g an d temperatur e monitorin g o fproces s boiler s an d heater s o f les s tha n 4 4 megawatt s regardles s o fho wtha t ven t strea m i s introduce d i n th e combustio n unit . Sinc e EP Aha s mad e a decisio n no t t o requir e monitorin g an d testin g fo runit s burnin g ven t stream s mixe d wit h primaryfue l unde r th e SOCM I HON , th e propose d NSP S fo rreacto rprocesses , th e existin g NSP S fo r distillatio n operation s an d th e CT G shoul d b e change d t o reflec t thi s an d provid e consistencybetwee n Titl e I an d Titl e III . III- 2P.2 5

TABL E 8 . EXAMPLE S O F REFINERY PROCESSE S EXCLUDE D

FRO M TH E NEGOTIATE D REGULATION Therma l Processe s Gas-oi l crackin g Therma l crackin g Visbreakin g Cokin g (fluid ) Cokin g (delayed ) Cokin g (flexi ) Othe r Catalyti c Crackin g Flui d Othe r Catalyti c Reformin g

- Semiregenerativ e

conventiona l catalys t bimetalli c catalys t Cycli c conventiona l catalys t bimetalli c catalys t Othe r continuou s catalyti c reformin g conventiona l catalys t bimetalli c catalys t Catalyti c Hydrocrackin g

- Distillat e upgradin g

- Residua l upgradin g

- Lube-oi l manufacturin g Othe r

18 7

_P.2 6

TABL E 8 . (Continued ) Catalyti c Hydrorefinin g Residua l desulfurizin g Heav ygas-oi l desulfurizin g Cat-cracke r and cycle-stoc k fee d pretreatmen t Middl e distillat e Othe r Fractionatio n Pip e still s Ligh t end s

- Ga s recover yunit s On-Sit e Transfe r an d Blendin g Operation s o f gasolin e an d othe r fuel s Lub e Oi l an d Specialtie s Processe s Catalyti c Hydrotreatin g Pretreatin g cat-reforme r feed s

- Naphth a desulfurizin g Naphth a olefi n o r aromatic s saturatio n Straight-ru n distillat e Othe r distillat e Lube-oi l "polishing " Othe r Alkylatio n Sulfuri c aci d Hydrofluori c aci d Refiner yPolymerizatio n Processe s Crud e Unit s (Atmospheri c and Vacuum ) Refinery

Isomerizatio n Proces s

18 8P.2 7 Attachmen t 5
Attachmen t IV COMMENT S ONSTORAG E VESSE L PROVISION S A . Ther e i s no d e minimi s HA P cutof f Ther e i s n o d e minimi s % HA P cutof f i n th e existin g regulation , othe r tha n a n exemptio n fo r stock s whic h "contai n organi c HAP s onl y a s impurities " (p

g 46) . W e hav e tw o concern s wit h thi s provision . Ther e wil l b e case s wher e HAP s ar e presen t i n organi c stock s a t low concentrations , bu t no t a s impurities . I t mayno t b e cost effectiv e t o contro l emission s fro mtank s containin g thes e stocks . Also , i t woul d b e helpfu l t o hav e a n exemptio n definitio n mor e quantifiabl e tha n 'a s a n impurity 1 . W e recommend on e identica l t o th e equipmen t lea k regulatio n ( < 5 % tota l HAPs) . B . The requirement s for existin g floatin

g roo f tank s ar e confusin g Sectio n (a ) (i ) o f th e HON(pp . 396 ) state s tha t al l ne wan d existin g Group 1 storag e vessel s mus t mee t th e provision s o f paragraph s (b) , (c) , (d ) , o r (e ) . I n Sectio n (d ) howeve r (pp . 403) , i t state s tha t "A n existing externa l floatin g roo f vesse l shal l b e converte d t o a n interna l floating roo f vessel. " Th e wor d "existing " make s thi s confusing . Mus t al l existin g Grou p 1 externa l floatin g roo f tank s b e converte d t o interna l floatin g roo f tanks , o r i s thi s jus t on e o f severa l option s (ie . ar e option s (c ) and (e ) als o available) ? C . The proposedregulatio ni s similar t o NSP S Subpar t Kb , bu t ther e ar e som e important difference s 1 . Th e vapo r pressur e exemptio n ha s bee n reduce d i n th e SOCM I HON a s compare d t o NSP S Kb , and th e HONi s attempting t o regulat e ne w tank s i n th e 10,000-20,00 0 gallo n range . Vapo r Pressur e Exemption s NSP S Subpar t K b Volum e > 40,00 0 ga l exemp t i f P v< 0. 5 psi a 20,00 0 < Volum e < 40,00 0 ga l

exemp t i f P v< 2. 2 psi a SOCM I HO N Volum e > 40,00 0 ga l exemp t i f P v< 0. 1 psi a 10,00 0 < Volum e < 40,00 0 ga l

exemp t i f P v< 1. 9 psi a Wha t i s EPA' s basi s fo r lowerin g thes e tw o ke yparameters ?2 . O n pag e 404 , i t i s state d tha t "period s o f routin e maintenanc e

[fo r a close d ven t systeman d contro l device ] shal l no t excee d 7 2 hour s pe r year. " Thi s i s veryrestrictive . I n th e even t tha t routin e maintenanc e wer e required , i t i s har d t o imagin e tha t i t coul d b e complete d i n thi s shor t tim e frame . Thi s restrictio n coul d provid e a disincentiv e t o d o routin e maintenance . W e believ e th e restrictio n tha t th e liqui d leve l i n th e storag e vesse l ma yno t b e raise d durin g period s o f routin e maintenanc e i s sufficient . D . Genera ] gffnnni«nfc « I n th e emission s estimatin g sectio n o f th e HON(pp . 587 ) "P " i s define d a s th e "tru e vapo r pressur e o f th e HAP " whe n i t shoul d b e th e tru e vapo r pressur e o f th e product . Thi s i s o f concer n onl y whe n th e tank contain s something othe r tha n a pur e HAP .P.2 9 Attachmen t

6

ATTACHMEN T V TRANSFE ROPERATION S A . EP A Shoul dEstablis haDeMinimu s Cutof f fo r Transfer Operations . Loadin g terminal s whic hloa dmor e than170,00 0 gallon s pe r year o f HAP s witha vapo r pressur e o f

1. 5 psi aan dgreate r

ar e covere db y th e HON . However , chemical s wit

himpuritie s ar e exempt , althoug hth e impurity leve l i s not defined . W e recommen dthat

EP Aadop t

adefinitio nwhic hi s consisten t withth e equipmen t lea k regulation , wher e astreamwit hles s tha n5 % VHA Pi s exempted . Also , th e propose dexemptio nleve l for th e annual loadin g volum e i s significantl y lowe r thanth e Benzen e Transfe r NESHAP . W e recommen dthat EP A adop t

th e 340,00 0 gallo npe r

year throughou t

exemptio nfor

th e HO Nto b e consisten t with Benzen e Transfe r

NESHAP . B . EP A Shoul dConside r a nEmissio nRate StandardInstea dof aPercen t

Efficienc y Standard . Over th e las t 2 0 year s th e contro l standardfo r gasolin e marketin g ha s shifte dfro ma percentag e basi s t o a

nemissio nrat e basi s (e.g. , 35mg/l NSP S for Bul k Terminals ) becaus e its' s easie r

for performanc e testing . Fo r thi s reaso nan dconsistenc y wit h existin g loadin g regulations , w e recommen dtha t EPA delet e th e 95%/98 % standar d an dinstea dse t

amas s HA Prat e pe r

lite r loaded . Th e emissio nrat e standar dcoul d tak e toxicit y o f

th e HAP s int o account , usin g th e "toxicit y bins " i nth e Earl y Reductio nCredi t

rule . C . Responsibilit y for Tan k Truck/Rai l Ca r

Vapo r Tightnes s Shoul dRes t

o nTan k Truck/Rai l Ca r

Operator . Owner s an doperator s of

SOCM I facilitie s rely heavil y o nthir dparty operator s of tan k truck s an drai l car s to handl e transportatio no f chemica l products . W e therefor e believ e th e responsibility for ensurin g th e vapo r

tightnes s shoul dres t

o n th e owner/operato r

o f th e tan k truc k o r rai l car . Thi s coul db e accomplishe db y requirin g th e tank

truc k o r rai l car operato r to provid e documentatio nt o th e SOCM I plan t operato r certifyin g tha

t al l truck s o r

rai l car s bein g loade dar e vapor-tight . D . Estimate dCos t

Effectivenes s Appear s Unrealisticall y Low . W e wer e unabl e t o evaluat e th e EPA' s estimate dcos t effectivenes s of.$10,00 0 pe r to nfor transfe r operatio nemission s control . However , basedo nou r experienc e withtank truc k loadin g terminal s for

smal l transfer

operations , w e believ e EPA' s estimate dcos t

effectivenes s i s to o low . W e urg e EP A t o revie w thei r estimat e to ensur e th e estimate dcos t

effectivenes s i s a s realisti c a s possible . E . Scrubbe r

Efficienc y Requiremen t for Hydroge nHalides/Halogen s Shoul db e Lower . Th e HO Nspecifie s tha t

ascrubbe r

capabl e of

a99 % reductio no r

greate r b e use dt o contro l hydroge nhalid e an dhaloge nemission s whic hremai nfollowin g us e of a combustio ndevice . W e recommen dthat ascrubbe r

efficienc y of

98 % b e specifie d to provid e consistency . V- lAttachmen t 7 

# ATTACHMEN

T VI I COMMENT S O N EMISSIO NAVERAGIN G I nou r genera l comments , we stressedthe needfo r consistency acros s EPA' s air program s t

o avoid confusionandto gainacceptanc e mor e readily . I

nthe HO N(pag e 176) EP

A refer s to it s 198 6 Emission s Trading Polic y Statemen t fo r criteri apollutant s a s justificatio nfo r having adiscount facto r inthe toxi c progra

m- to b e consistent . We agree tha t apreceden

t ha s bee nset fo r discount factors . Consistency i s importan t Tha t i s wh y we ar e ver y concerne dto see inother part s o f the HO Naveraging provisiontha

t EP A i s departing drasticall

y fro mit s 198 6 Trading Policy wit hver y littl e explanationo r

evidenc e o

f the needfo

r change . EP

A appear s to b e deletin g provision s tha t industr y ha s foun

dto b e ver

y useful . The 198 6 Trading Policy evolve dover 1 0 year s of

muc h "giv e an dtake " fromal l parties . EP A shouldnot

re-open"ol dbattles " unles s stron g evidenc e indicate s the need . Som

e o f ou r recommendation s below includ e reference s to principle s inEPA' s 198 6 Policy . A . HO NBaselin e Wil l Caus e Reduction s t o b e Postponed . The HO Npropose s not. to allow credit fo r reduction s tha

t occu r befor e the promulgationdat

e of the MACT rule . Thi s create s area l disincentiv e fo

r industr y to voluntarily reduc e emission s early . EP A trie s to justif

y thi s HONpositio nby saying suc hearly reduction s "woul dhav e occurre d anyway " (p g 172) . For

EP A to lum p al l early reduction s into thi s **woul danyway " categor

y i s unfai r an darbitrary . Man

y companie s toda

y ar e volunteering to reduc e their emission s (e.g. , the 33/5 0 Program) t o maintaingoo drelation s wit hth e public . Thos e plan s coul dquickly chang e if EP A now create s asituatio nwhereby industrie s must kee p their emission s up to permitte dlevel s unti l the date of

MACT promulgationinorder to participat

e i nthe cost-effectiv e MACT bubbl e provision . EP

Ashouldnot

forc e industr

y into suc hgam e playing . EP

A shouldremov e roadblock s to early reductions , not

mak e them . The 198 6 EP

A Tradin g Polic y include s banking provision s tha t allow s industr

y t o reduc e criteri a emission s whe

nthe opportunitie s aris e andno t b e forcedto "ru ndirty " unti l th e time whe nthe credit i s needed . EP

A shouldb e consistent

andallow som

e banking inth e toxi c program . (W e wouldb e willing to accept

a5-yea r lif e oncredits. ) Th e baseline date fo

r banking credit s coul db e the date o f the company' s credi t

applicatio nto the agency , but

EPA' s proposedMACT promulgationdat e i s definitel

y unworkable . Anothe

r baseline optioncouldb e 199 0 whe

nthe Clea nAir Act was enacted . B . Environmen t

Benefit s if

Averagin g I s Allowe dAcros s Sourc e Categories . Wit hEPA' s proposeddiscoun

t factor, the averaging approac hwill creat

e mor e emissionreduction s tha nstraigh t MACT . Therefore , EP

Ashouldencourag e mor

e "bubbling " by allowing facilitie s to reduc e emission s acros s sourc e categorie s a s long a s the emissionpoint s are withinthe facility' s fenceline . Th e HO Npropose s t o limi t th e poo l o f

reductio ncandidate s t o onl y thos e emissio n point s coveredby thi s MACT' s sourc e categor y (i.e. , tanks , wastewater , vent s & loading) . Ther e ar e othe r emissionpoint s inmos t

chemica l plants , but

industr y i s no t allowe dto reduc e the

mandP.3 1

ge t credit . Thi s HO

Napproachi s arbitrar

y andinconflict

wit hthe criteri apollutan

t bubble policy whic hallow s an

y emissionpoin

t withi nthe plan t fencelin e t o be areductioncandidate . EP Ashould b e consisten

t betwee ntoxic s andcriteri apollutants . I nthe HON , de minimi s emissionpoint s tha t ar e ar e no t requiredto be controlledby MAC T bu t ar e the sam e sourc e typ e (e.g. , small tanks ) ma y b e useda s reductio ncandidates . Wha t i s the differenc e inextending the bubbl e scop e to othe r point s not requiredto b e controlledby MACT ? (W e suspect EPA' s rea l reason i s it s reluctanc e t

o accoun t fo r toxicit y differences , but

perhap s EP

A shouldtak

e tha t ste p to satisf y severa l states ' concerns. ) EP A state s inthe HON(p g 166) tha t the Clea nAir Act' s "floor

requirement" fo

r MACT prevent s EP A fro mallowing averaging acros s sourc e categories . Variou s industr y attorney s hav e studie d tha t sam e statutor y languag e andhav e conclude dtha t i t doe s allo w averagin g acros s sourc e categorie s withinafacility' s fenceline (eg ; CMA' s letter to M . S . Wine

r of EPA-OGC , 12/6/91) . Has EPA' s Offic

e o f Genera l preparedawritte

npositiononthi s issue ? W e recommen

dtha t EP A allow toxic bubblin

g t o includ e an y emissionpoin

t withi nthe fencelin

e o f acontiguou s facility . Thi s broa dapproachwouldb e consisten t wit hthe 198 6 Trading Polic y and the Toxic s Early ReductionCredit Program . Thi s broa

dapproachha s the additiona l benefit of helping EP

A identif y additiona

l emissionpoint s a s yet

unknownandunregulated . It wil l unleash the searchcapabilitie s o

f thousand s of

plan t engineers an

doperators . C . Credi tfo rCertai n Shutdowns . The HO Npropose s t o not

allow credit

fo r proces s unit

shutdown s (p g 579) . However , th e criteri a pollutant bubbl e polic y allow s credit fo r shutdown s tha

t occu r afte r Augus t 7 , 1977 (enactment date of previou s Ac t

amendments ) i f

th e are aha s a

napprovedattainment

plan . I narea s without approvedplans , companie s ca nstil l get credit if the y appl y fo r credit prior to the shutdownor

i f the shutdow

ni s being replaced . We believ e toxi c credit fo r certainshutdown s shouldb e allowed , especiall y replacements . Shutdown s ar e suc ha nimportan t source o f potentia l credit tha t we would probably b e willing to accept ahighe r discount facto r (eg ; 50% ) fo

r thi s typ e of

reduction . A

t a minimum , i

f EP A doesn' t allow an y shutdow ncredit inthe HON , EP

A shouldfull

y explainwh

y it i s being inconsisten

t betwee nit s tw o bubble policies . D . Mandate d "CookBook " vs . Case-bv-Case . It appear s tha

t EP A inthe HONi s strivin g to develop asimple , standardize dwa y to administe

r toxic bubbles . Althoug

hanobl e goal , EP

A appears t

o b e trying to nail downto o man y detail s tha

t ar e bette r handledcase-by-cas e inth e facilities ' bubble application s andpermits . For example , EP A propose s t o set

contro l efficiencie s fo

r standar dcontro l technologie s (e.g. , 95% ) andnot allo w companie s extr acredi t fo r operatin g th e device s a

t higher efficiencie s (e.g. , 98%)* . Althoug hthe rigidefficiencie s allow fo r easie r accounting , the

y remove an

y incentive fo

r operators to develo p finetuning improvements indesignor operating practice . Also , the HONinclude s rigid equation s for

estimatin g emissions , but histor y ha s showntha

t estimatin g method s chang e frequentl y a s mor e accurat e method s ar

e developed . Th

e HO Nequation s will probabl

y b e outdated the da y the HO Ni s promulgated . We sugges t EP A shif t fro msuc harigid, detaile d"cookbook " approach , andinstea

dfocu s o ndefining key principle s suc ha s "quantifiable " and"enforceable" . •Se e pag e 16 8 i

ndraf t HO N VTI- 2DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl y 

## FIGUR E 8 —HO NWASTEWATE R OPERATION S

REQUIREMEN T 

### Existin g proces s units-Tabl e 9 Group 1 W W strea m

- tota l VOHA P concentratio n greate r tha n o r equa l t o 10,00 0 ppmw , o r

- tota l VOHA P concentratio n greate r tha n o r equa l t o 50 0 ppmwan d flo wrat e greate r tha n o r equa l t o 1 Cpm , o r

- tota l VOHA P concentratio n greate r tha n o r equa l t o 1 0 ppmw(whe n stream s generate d withi n th e sam e proces s uni t ar e combined )

- exemption : unless , sourc e tota l VOHA P mas s flo wrat e o f al l Grou p 1 wastewate r stream s i s les s tha n 1 Mg/y r 2 4 DE C 9 1 DRAF T REGULATOR Y CITATIO N §63.132(d ) (2 ) (i ) §63.132(d)(2)(ii ) §63.138(d)(2 ) §63.132(d)(4 ) PAG E NO . 47 0 47 0
47 0
47 1DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl y 

## FIGUR E 8 —HO NWASTEWATE R OPERATION S

REQUIREMEN T 

### Existin g treatmen t standard s

- trea t residual s an d contro l fo r ai r emission s

- on e o r mor e Grou p 1 stream s
• recycl e t o process , o r
• trea t wit h desig n stripper , o r

• reduc e tota l VOHA P mas s flo wrat e b y99% , o r

• reduc e tota l VOHA P averag e concentratio n t o 5 0 ppmw , o r

• reduc e tota l VOHA P mas s flo wrat e fo r eac h grou p o f HAP' s i n accordanc e wit h Tabl e 9 2 4 DE C 9 1 DRAF T REGULATOR Y CITATIO N §63.138(c ) an d §63.138(f) . §63.13 8 (c ) (1 ) (i ) §63.13 8 (c ) (1 ) (ii ) (A ) §63.13 8 (c ) (1 ) (ii ) (B ) §63.13 8 (c ) (1 ) (ii ) (C ) §63.13 8 (c ) (1 ) (ii ) (C ) PAG E NO . 487 / 49 7 48 7 48 8 48 8 48 8 48 8DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl y 

## FIGUR E 8 —HO NWASTEWATE R OPERATION S

REQUIREMEN T 

### Existin g treatmen t standard s

- trea t residual s an d contro l fo r ai r emission s

- fo r combinatio n o f one . o r mor e Grou p 1 and Grou p 2 wastewate r stream s (include s wastewate r stream s generate d withi n th e same.proces s uni t o r wastewate r stream s combine d fro mdifferen t proces s units )

• recycl e t o process , o r
• trea t wit h desig n stea mstripper , o r

• reduc e tota l VOHA P mas s flo wrat e b y99% , o r

• reduc e VOHA P mas s flo wrat e fo r eac h qrou p o f HAP' s i n accordanc e wit h Tabl e 9 efficiencies , o r

• achiev e require d mas s remova l o f Grou p 1 wastewate r stream s

- fo r wastewate r stream s generate d withi n th e sam e proces s uni t

• recycl e t o process , o r
• reduc e tota l VOHA P concentratio n t o les s tha n 1 0 ppmwfo r eac h strea m(befor e exposur e t o atmoshper e o r wastewater s generate d fro m differen t proces s unit ) 2 4 DE C 9 1 DRAFT REGULATOR Y CITATIO N §63.138(c ) an d §63.138(f )

§63.13 8 (c ) (1 ) (i ) §63.13 8 (c ) (1 ) (iii ) (A ) §63.13 8 (c ) (1 ) (iii ) (B ) §63.13 8 (c ) (1 ) (iii ) (C ) §63.138(c ) (1 ) (iii ) (C ) an d §63.145(h ) §63.138(d)(2)(i)(A ) §63.138(d)(2)(i)(B ) '
487 / 49 7

48 7 48 8 48 8 48 8 495 / 55 0

49 6 49 6DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl y 

## FIGUR E 8 HO NWASTEWATE R OPERATION S

REQUIREMEN T Ne w proces s unit s - - Tabl e 8 Grou p1 W W strea m

- flo wrat e qreate r tha n o r equa l t o 0.0 2 {pm , an d

- concentratio n o f anyTabl e 8 HA P greate r tha n o r equa l t o 1 0 ppmw 

### Ne wtreatmen t standard s

- trea t residual s an d contro l fo r ai r emission s fo r al l alternative s

- on e Grou p 1 wastewate r strea m

• recycl e t o process , o r
• reduc e eac h Tabl e 8 HA P t o les s tha n lOppmw , o r
• trea t wit h desig n stea mstrippe r

- combinatio n o f Grou p 1 an d Grou p 2 wwstream s

• recycl e t o process , o r

• reduc e combine d mas s flo wrat e o f Tabl e 8 compound s b

y99% , o r

• trea t wit h desig n stea mstripper , o r

• achiev e require d mas s remova l o f tota l VOHAP' s 2 4 DE C 9 1 DRAF T REGULATOR Y CITATIO N §63.132(c )

§63.138(c ) an d §63.138(f ) §63.138(b ) (1 ) (i ) §63.138(b)(1)(ii)(A ) §63.138(b)(1)(ii)(B ) §63.138(b)(1)(i ) §63.138(b)(1)(iii)(A ) §63.138(b ) (1 ) (iii ) (B ) §63.138(b ) (1 ) (iii ) (C ) PAG E NO . 46 7

487 / 49 7 48 6 48 6 48 6 48 6 48 6 48 6 48 6DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl y 

## FIGUR E 8 —HO NWASTEWATE R OPERATION S

REQUIREMEN T 

### SOCM I sourc e

- produce s on e o r mor e o f

alis t

o f SOCM I chemicals , 

### Ne wproces s uni t

- constructe do r modifie dafte r

th e proposa l dat e 2 4 DE C 9 1 DRAFT REGULATORY CITATIO N §63.100(b ) an d §63.10 5 §63.100(f ) (1 ) PAG E NO . 301 / 31 5 30 6Attachmen t 8

ATTACHMEN

T V I Comment s o n subpar t H (Equipmen t Leak s Regulation ) A . Th e Publishe d Regulatio n i s th e Same a s Wha t wa s Agree d t o b yth e Negotiatin g Committe e Thi s regulatio n wa s develope d an d agree d t o b

ya negotiate d rulemakin g process . Ou r revie wo f thes e section s focuse d o n confirmin g tha t th e regulatio n agree d t o b yth e committe e i s th e sam e a s th e on e currentl ypropose d fo r publication . Wit h th e exceptio n o f som e typographica l error s (se e attache d table ) , th e regulatio n i s th e sam e a s ha s bee n agree d t o previously . B . Eguipmen t Lea k Contro l i s no t a "Cos t saving " O n pag e 6 9 i t i s state d tha t "th e annua l cost s o f controllin g emission s fromequipmen t leak s revea l a cos t savings. " W e believ e thi s statemen t i s no t vali d considering tha t th e bul k o f th e cos t fo r thi s regulatio n wil l b e th e additiona l annua l cos t require d fo r Inspectio n an d Maintenanc e programs . C . Emission s ca n b e Calculate d from Equipmen t Leak s Th e HONstate s tha t on e o f th e reason s emission s averagin g canno t b e use d fo r equipmen t leak s i s tha t "n o metho d currentl y exist s fo r determinin g th e magnitud e o f allowabl e emission s t o assig n leaks " (pag e 166) . Ye t o n pag e 63 , the yhav e quantifie d th e emission s reduction s resultin g fro m th e HON . W e believ e method s ar e availabl e fo r calculating emission s fromequipmen t leaks . Ou r understandin g i s tha t th e negotiatin g committe e coul d no t agre e o n th e us e o f emission s averagin g fo r equipmen t leaks . W e sugges t tha t i t b e state d i n th e HONtha t th e reaso n emission s averagin g canno t b e use d i s tha t th e committe e wa s unabl e t o reac h agreemen t o n thi s issue .ATTACHMEN T V I (CONT. ) TYPOGRAPHICA L ERROR S I N FUGITIV E EQUIPMEN T REGULATIO N A . Sectio n VIII . Rational e fo r Negotiate d Rul e fo r Eguipmen t Leak s 1 ) . Pag e 197 , Th e thir d sentenc e i n th e secon d paragrap h shoul d read . "Thi s revie wshowe d tha t man yplant s ha d n o valve s o r pump s exceedin g 10.00 0 pp man d n o plant s ha d mor e tha n 1. 5 percen t valves.... " 2 ) . Pag e 207 , Th e 4t h sentenc e appear s t o b e missin g a wor d afte r th e secon d appearanc e o f "from" . 3 ) . Pag e 208 , Th e secon d sentenc e appear s t o b e missin g a wor d afte r th e wor d "such" . 4 ) Pag e 214 , I n th e secon d sentenc e ther e appear s t o b e a phras e missin g afte r th e phras e "monthl ymonitoring" . 5 ) Pag e 220 , I n secon d sentenc e o f th e las t paragraph , "movings " shoul d rea d "movin g parts" . Th e sam e commen t applie s t o th e secon d sentenc e i n th e secon d paragrap h o n pag e 268 . B . Subpar t H - Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Organi c Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s fro m Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturin g Eguipmen t Leaks . 1 ) Pag e 5 , las t sentence , i n th e previou s versio n o f th e regulation , "1,3-diisocobpayanate " wa s spelle d "1, 3 diisocyanate" . 2 ) Pag e 15 , i n subpar t (a) , "63.17 5 an d 63.176 " shoul d rea d "63.17 5 throug h 63.179" . 3 ) Pag e 35 , i n th e firs t paragrap h (subpar t (2)) , "63.163 " shoul d b e "63.172" . 4 ) Pag e 43 , i n th e firs t paragrap h (subpar t (2)) , "25 4 cm " shoul d b e "5.0 8 cm" . 5 ) Pag e 76 , Tabl e 1 , i n th e las t lin e o f th e Table , "100/5 " shoul d b e "100%" .P.3 9

DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Only Attachment 9

GUID E T O HO N

WASTEWATE RRUL E 1 . Introductio n t o Guide . Th e EPAi s developin g a standar d t o limi t emission s o f hazardou s ai r pollutant s (HAP's ) fro mSOCM I chemica l manufacturing operations . Thi s rul e i s calle d th e hazardou s organi c NESHAP o r HON . Th e HO Nwil l regulat e ai r emission s o f certai n organi c hazardou s ai r pollutant s fro m fiv e SOCM I operations : proces s vents ; wastewate r collectio n an d treatmen t operations ; storag e vessels ; transfe r operations ; and , equipmen t leaks . Thi s guid e focuse s o n th e propose d wastewate r operation s provision s an

d i s intende d t o b e use d wit h th e attache d Figure s 1 through 8 . Figur e 1 map s th e decisio n proces s fo r determinin g whethe r th e HO

Ni s applicabl e t o wastewate r stream s generate d withi n a specifi c proces s unit . Figure s 2 an d 3 outlin e th e decisio n proces s fo r determining whethe r wastewate r stream s ar e Grou p 1 o r Grou

p 2 wastewate r streams . Figure s 4 an d 5 outlin e treatmen t provision s require d fo r Group 1 wastewate r streams . Figur e 6 outline s alternat e treatmen t provisions . Figur e 7 outline s treatmen t option s fo r residual s fro m Grou p 1 wastewate r streams . Figur e 8 provide s a summaryo f HONwastewate r requirement s an

d provide s reference s fro m th e 2 4 De c 9 1 draf t regulation . Pleas e not e tha t Figure s 1 an d 2 wer e combine d i n previousl ydistribute d draft s o f th e figures . Tabl e 8 , Organi c HA P Compound s Subjec t t o Ne wProces s Uni t Requirements , an

d Tabl e 9 , Organi c HA P Strippabilit yGroup s an d Targe t Remova l Efficiencie s ar e availabl e i n th e draf t regulation . 2 . Overview . Th e goa l o f th e HONi s t o limi t organi c HAP emission s i n accordanc e wit h th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 . Whil e th e magnitud e o f emission s fromwastewate r depend s o n a numbe r o f strea man d facilit yspecifi c factors , th e mos t significan t factor s ar e wastewate r flo wrat e an d organi c HA P concentration . Ther e ar e tw o potentia l strategie s fo r contro l o f HA P emission s fro mth e collectio n an d treatmen t o f contaminate d wastewater . Th e firs t contro l strateg yi s wast e minimizatio n through proces s modifications , modificatio n o f operatin g practices , preventativ e maintenance , recycling , o r segregatio n o f wast e streams . Th e EPA recognize s tha t man ysource s mayb e abl e t o achiev e significan t reduction s i n HAP emission s throug h th e implementatio n o f wast e minimization/recycling . Therefore , recyclin g a wastewate r strea m i s a n optio n fo r complying wit h th e treatmen t provision s fo r an y stream .PAO

DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl y

Th e secon

d contro l strateg

yi s t o reduc e th e HAP conten t o f th e wastewate r through treatmen t befor e th e wastewate r strea m contact s atmosphere . Thi s i s accomplishe d b ycontrolling emission s from

collectio n an

d treatmen t systemcomponent s an d treating th e wastewate r strea mt o specifie d level s befor e discharge . Acomplet e strateg

yfo r reducing th e HA P conten t o f wastewate r includes : (l ) emission s suppressio n fro mtransport , handling , an d treatment , (2 ) reductio n o f HA P content , an d (3 ) treatmen t o f residuals . Eac h o f thes e step s i s essentia l t o th e effectiv e reductio n o f organi c HA P emissions . 3 . Definitions . Genera l definition s an d description s ar e outline d i n thi s paragraph . a . Ne wmean s tha t constructio n o r reconstructio n (pe r §112(g ) o f th e CAAA ) bega n afte r th e HO Nproposa l date . b . Th e poin t o f generatio n mean s th e locatio n wher e a wastewate r strea

mexit s a proces s uni t component , o r produc t o r fee d storag e tank , prio r t o handling o r treatmen t i n a piec e o f equipmen t whic h i s no t a n integra l par t o f th e productio n process . Apiec e o f equipmen t i s considere d an integra l par t o f th e proces s uni t i f it s remova l woul d resul t i n a proces s uni t productio n shutdown . Th e poin t o f generatio n fo r landfil l leachat e i s a t th e pum p wel l fro

mwhic h th e leachat e i s pumpe d ou t a t th e landfill . Th e poin t o f generatio n wa s selecte d a s th e poin t a t -whic h applicabilit yi s determine d an d regulatio n begins . Thi s poin t wa s selecte d because : (1 ) a t thi s poin t th e productio n proces s end s an d th e wastewate r system begins ; (2 ) thi s i s th e poin t wher e th e organi c concentratio n i s highest ; and , (3 ) afte r thi s poin t th e potentia l fo r emission s fromwastewate r occurs . c . Residua l mean s an ymateria l containin g VOHA P tha t i s remove d fro

m a wastewate r strea mb ya wast e managemen t uni t tha t doe s no t destro yorganics . Example s o f residual s includ e th e organi c laye r an d bottomresidu e remove d b

ya decante r o r organic-wate r separator , an d th e overhea d condensat e streamfroma stea mo r ai r stripper . d . ASOCM I proces s uni t i s define d a s a uni t producing on e o r mor e o f a lis t o f SOCM I chemical s tha t i s a HAP o r use s a HA P a s a reactant . Proces s unit s includ e al lP4 1

DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl y

equipmen t associate d wit h uni t operations , storag e an d transpor t o f fee d materia l t o th e uni t operation s an d storag e an

d transfe r o f product s fro muni t operations . Equipmen t associate d wit h wast e managemen t an d wast e treatmen t i s no t par t o f th e proces s unit . e . Asourc e i s considere d t o b e al l SOCM I operation s subjec t t o th e HO

Nwithi n a contiguou s are a an d unde r commo n control . f . VOHAP mean s th e volatil e portio n o f an individually

speciate d organi c HAP i n a wastewate r strea mo r residua l tha t i s measure d b ya combinatio n o f Metho d 25 D an d Metho d 18 . Tota l VOHAP mean s th e su mo f th e individually-speciate d organi c HAP' s a s measure d b yth e combinatio n o f Method s 25 D an d 18 . Determinatio n o f tota l VOHAP averag e concentratio n i s specifie d i n §63.144 . g . Wastewate r i s an yorgani c HAP-containin g liqui d o r materia l separate d fro mth e liqui d resultin g fro m indirec t o r direc t contac t o f wate r wit h organi c HAP' s whic h ar e subsequentl ydiscarded , stored , o r treate d prio r t o being discharged , discarded , o r recycled . Example s o f wastewate r stream s includ e proces s wastewater , productio n fee d tan k drawdown , landfil l leachate , cooling towe r blowdown , an d stea mtrap condensate . Wastewate r generatio n can b e continuou s o r intermitten t i n nature . Wastewate r stream s ar e classifie d a s Grou p 1 o r Grou

p 2 wastewate r streams . Grou p 1 wastewate r stream s requir e emission s contro l an d monitoring . Grou p 2 wastewate r stream s mayb e subjec t t o monitoring . Owner s an d operator s o f bot h group s ar e subjec t t o certai n reporting requirements . Grou p 1 wastewate r strea mdetermination s depend upo n whethe r th e strea

m i s generate d withi n a ne wo r existing proces s unit . Awastewate r strea

mfro ma n ne wo r existin g proces s uni t i s a Grou

p 1 wastewate r strea mrequirin g contro l fo r Tabl e 9 HAP' s if :

- tota l VOHA P averag e concentratio n i s greate r tha n o r equa l t o 10,00 0 part s pe r millio n b y weight ; o rP.4 2

DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl v

- tota l VOHAP averag e concentratio n i s greate r than o r equa l t o 50 0 part s pe r millio n b yweigh t an d flowrat e i s greate r than o r equa l t o 1 lite r pe r minute . A n exemptio n fo r wastewate r stream s generate d withi n existing unit s i s provided . Wastewate r stream s fro man existing proces s unit s ar e no t Grou p 1 wastewate r stream s requiring contro l fo r Tabl e 9 HAP' s i f th e tota l VOHAP mas s flo wrat e fo r th e sourc e i s les s than 1 megagra

mpe r year . Awastewate r strea

mfroma ne

w proces s uni t i s a Grou p 1 wastewate r strea mrequiring contro l fo r Tabl e 8 HAP' s if :

- th e annua l averag e flowrat e i s 0.0 2 lite r pe r minut e o r greater ; and .

- th e averag e concentratio n o f an yon e o f th e Tabl e 8 compound s i s 1 0 part s pe r millio n b y weigh t o r greater . 4 . HO N

Wastewate r Operation s Applicabilit y (Figur e 1) . Figur e 1 i s use d t o determin e whethe r wastewate r stream s generate d i n an individua l proces s uni t are : subjec t t o th e HO Nregulatio n (i.e. , th e proces s uni t i s a SOCM I proces s unit) ; and , generate d withi n ne wo r existing units . 5 . Ne wProces s Uni t —Determinatio n o f Grou p 1 Wastewate r Stream s fo r Tabl e 8 HAP' s (Figur e 2) . Existing an

d Ne wProces s Unit s —Determinatio n o f Grou p 1 Wastewate r Stream s fo r Tabl e 9 HAP' s (Figure 3) . Th e decisio n scheme s presente d i n Figure s 2 an d 3 hel p t o determin e whethe r th e stream s wil l b e Grou p 1 wastewate r streams . Tota l VOHA P averag e concentratio n an d averag e flo wrat e fo r eac h wastewate r strea

m mus t b e calculate d base d o n measurement s take n a t th e poin t o f generation . a . Adistinctio n i s mad e betwee n ne wan d existin g proces s units . Ne wunit s ar e require d t o achiev e a mor e stringen t leve l o f emission s contro l tha n existing unit s fo r Tabl e 8 HAP's . Becaus e o f thi s distinction , tw o set s o f criteri a ar e use d t o determin e whethe r a strea mi s a Grou

p 1 wastewate r stream ; on e fo r ne wunit s an d on e fo r existing units .P.43 _

DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl y

b . Figur e 2 . Fo r eac h individua l strea m generate d withi n a ne wproces s unit , th e concentratio n o f compound s i n Tabl e 8 an d th e flo wrat e fo r eac h strea ma t th e poin t o f generatio n mus t b e determined . Th e Tabl e 8 compound s ar e thos e wit h volatilitie s equa l t o o r greate r tha n benzene . I f th e flo w rat e fo r a n individua l strea mi s greate r tha n o r equa l t o 0.0 2 lite r pe r minut e (£pm) , an d th e concentratio n o f an y individua l Tabl e 8 HAP i s greate r tha n o r equa l t o 1 0 par t pe r millio n b

yweigh t (ppmw) , th e wastewate r strea mmus t mee t th e treatmen t provision s fo r ne wunits . Th e 1 0 ppm w concentratio n i s th e same concentratio n a s i n th e NESHA P fo r Benzen e Wast e Operation s an d Viny l Chloride . Thes e rule s wer e use d i n th e determinatio n o f th e contro l leve l fo r ne w units . Th e flowrat e i s th e sam e a s tha t fo r th e Benzen e Wast e Operation s NESHAP . AGrou p 1 o r Grou

p 2 wastewate r strea mfo r Tabl e 8 HAP' s mus t als o b e evaluate d a s a potentia l Grou p 1 wastewate r strea mfo r Tabl e 9 HAP's . c . Figur e 3 . Th e firs t decisio n diamon d i n thi s figur e ask s tw o questions . Th e firs t questio n i s whethe r th e wastewate r strea

mi s generate d withi n an existing uni t o r i s generate d fro

mwithi n a ne wuni t no t subjec t t o Tabl e 8 HA P contro l requirements . Th e second questio n i n th e diamond ask s whethe r th e strea mi s segregate d fro mothe r wastewate r stream s o r mixe d onl ywit h wastewate r stream s generate d withi n th e same proces s uni t befor e exposur e t o th e atmosphere . Whe n th e answe r t o bot h question s i s yes , th e strea mma yb e controlle d accordin g t o th e treatmen t provision s outline d i n Figur e 5 o r Figur e 6 . I f th e answe r t o eithe r o f th e question s i s no , th e wastewate r strea m mus t b e controlle d i n accordanc e wit h th e treatmen t provision s outline d i n Figur e 5 . Whe n th e treatmen t provision s outline d i n Figur e 6 ar e use d t o achiev e compliance , n o Group 1 / Grou p 2 determinatio n i s mad e —al l th e wastewate r stream s mus t b e evaluate d fo r treatmen t o r recycling . Whe n Figur e 5 treatmen t provision s ar e use d t o achiev e compliance , Figur e 3 i s use d t o ascertai n whic h stream s requir e control , i.e , whic h stream s ar e Group 1 wastewate r stream s fo r Tabl e 9 HAP's . Fo r eac h wastewate r strea musin g Figur e 3 t o mak e a Grou p 1 determination , tota l VOHA P averag e concentratio n an d averag e flo wrat e mus t b e determine d a t th e poin t o f generation . Th e wastewate r strea mi s Grou

p 1 wastewate r strea mif : (1 ) th e tota l VOHA P averag e concentratio n o f th e wastewate r strea

mi s greate r tha n o r equa l t o 10,00 0 part s pe r millio n b yweigh t (ppmw) ; or ,P.4 4

DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl y

(2 ) th e tota l VOHAP averag e concentratio n i s greate r tha n o r equa l t o 5'0 0 part s pe r millio n b yweigh t an

d th e averag e flowrat e i s equa l t o o r greate r than 1 lite r pe r minute . A n exemptio n t o th e Grou p 1 determinatio n fo r existing proces s unit s i s provided . Mas s flowrate s fo r al l individua l wastewate r stream s determine d t o b e uncontrolle d Grou p 1 wastewate r stream s b yth e criteri a abov e ar e calculate d an

d summed . Thi s summatio n i s th e tota l sourc e VOHAP mas s flowrate . I f th e tota l sourc e VOHA P mas s flow rat e i s les s tha n 1 megagra mpe r year , treatmen t i s no t require d fo r thos e streams . 6 . Ne wProces s Unit s —Treatmen t Provision s (Figur e 4) . Wastewate r managemen t unit s handling Group 1 wastewate r stream s mus t contro l fo r ai r emission s using appropriat e contro l techniques . Th e contro l technique s mus t b e employe d bot h befor e an d during treatmen t and/o r recycling o f th e wastewate r stream . Wastewate r stream s tha t ar e recycle d t o a proces s uni t requir e n o furthe r treatment . Becaus e th e mos t effectiv e an d leas t costl y contro l techniqu e wil l var yo n a sit e specifi c basis , th e standard s ar e structure d t o allowsevera l alternative s fo r achieving th e require d emissio n reductions . Fo r wastewate r stream s compose d o f on e Group 1 wastewate r stream , on e o f th e following treatmen t alternative s i s required :

(1 ) recycl e t o a process , o r (2 ) reduc e eac h Tabl e 8 HA P t o 1 0 ppm wo r less , o r (3 ) instal l an

d operat e a stea

mstrippe r meeting th e desig n an

d operatio n specification s require d b yth e regulation . Fo r wastewate r stream s compose d o f on e o r mor e Grou p 1 and/o r Grou p 2 wastewate r streams , treatmen t option s ar e structure d t o preven t dilutio n a s a mean s o f achieving compliance . Ther e ar e fou r treatmen t alternative s fo r thes e combine d Grou p 1/Grou

p 2 wastewate r streams :

(1 ) recycl e t o a process , o r (2 ) reduc e b

y9 9 percen t o r mor e th e combine d mas s flo wrat e o f th e Tabl e 8 HAP's , o r (3 ) instal l an

d operat e a stea

mstrippe r meeting th e desig n an

d operatio n specification s require d b yth e regulation , o r (4 ) . achiev e th e require d mas s remova l o f VOHAP fro m Tabl e 8 compound s contribute d b yGrou p 1 wastewate r stream s (a s determine d b yth e procedur e i n §63.145(g)) .P.4 5

DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl y

Th e las t alternative , require d mas s removal , i s designe d t o requir e 9 9 percen t reductio n o f onl ythos e Tabl e 8 HAP' s contribute d b

yth e Grou

p l wastewate r streams . Choosin g t o compl ywit h th e require d mas s remova l standar d woul d no t penaliz e a sourc e fo r combining Grou p 1 an d Grou p 2 wastewate r stream s fo r treatment . Alternatively , th e overal l 9 9 percen t reductio n standar d coul d potentiall yb e a mor e stringen t optio n fo r mixe d streams , bu t woul d b e les s comple x i n term s o f demonstratin g compliance . 7 . Existing an

d Ne wProces s Unit s —Treatmen t Provision s (Figur e 5 ) . Wast e treatmen t unit s handling Grou p 1 wastewate r stream s mus t contro l fo r ai r emission s using appropriat e contro l techniques . Th e contro l technique s mus t b e employe d bot h befor e an d during treatmen t and/o r recycling o f th e wast e stream . Stream s tha t ar e recycle d t o th e proces s uni t wil l requir e n o furthe r treatment . Th e firs t decisio n diamond i n thi s figur e ask s tw o questions . Th e firs t questio n i s whethe r th e wastewate r strea mi s generate d withi n a n existing uni t o r i s generate d fromwithi n a ne wuni t no t subjec t t o Tabl e 8 HA P contro l requirements . Th e secon d questio n in th e diamond ask s whethe r th e strea mi s segregate d fro mothe r wastewate r stream s o r mixe d onl ywit h wastewate r stream s generate d withi n th e same proces s uni t befor e exposur e t o th e atmosphere . Whe n th e answe r t o bot h question s i s yes , th e strea mma yb e controlle d accordin g t o th e treatmen t provision s outline d i n Figur e 5 o r Figur e 6 . I f th e answe r t o eithe r o f th e question s i s no , th e wastewate r strea mmus t b e controlle d i n accordanc e wit h th e treatmen t provision s outline d i n Figur e 5 . Ther e ar e severa l treatmen t alternative s outline d i n Figur e 5 . Thes e ar e discusse d i n th e paragraph s below . Fo r wastewate r stream s compose d o f on e o r mor e Grou p 1 wastewate r streams , complianc e wit h on e o f th e following fiv e treatmen t alternative s i s required :

(1 ) recycl e t o a process , o r (2 ) instal l an

d operat e a stea

mstrippe r meeting th e design an

d operatio n specification s require d b yth e regulation , o r (3 ) reduc e tota l VOHA P mas s flo wrat e b y99 % o r more , o r (4 ) reduc e tota l VOHA P averag e concentratio n t o les s tha n 5 0 part s pe r millio n b yweight , o r (5 ) reduc e tota l VOHA P mas s flo wrat e o f eac h grou p o f organi c HAP' s b

yth e reductio n efficienc ypercentage s specifie d i n Tabl e 9 .— —— —P.4 6

DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl y

A s wit h wastewate r generate d withi n newproces s units , wastewate r stream s generate d fro m existing unit s an

d compose d o f on e o r mor e Grou p 1 and/o r Grou

p 2 wastewate r stream s ar e no t allowe d t o us e dilutio n a s a mean s t o achieving compliance . Ther e ar e five treatmen t alternative s fo r thes e combine d Grou p 1/Grou

p 2 wastewate r streams :

(1 ) recycl e t o a process , o r (2 ) instal l an

d operat e a stea

mstrippe r meetin g th e design an

d operatio n specification s require d b yth e regulation , o r (3 ) reduc e tota l VOHA P mas s flowrat e b y99 % o r more , o r (4 ) reduc e VOHA P mas s flowrat e o f eac h grou p o f organi c HAP' s b

yth e reductio n percentage s give n i n Tabl e 9 , o r (5 ) achiev e th e require d mas s remova l o f tota l VOHA P contribute d b

yGrou p 1 wastewate r stream s (a s determine d b

yth e procedure s i n §63.145(h)) . Th e procedur e i n §63.14 5 fo r computin g mas s remova l i s base d o n th e percentag e remova l tha t ca n b e achieve d for
- eac h o f th e Tabl e 9 groups , an

d i s designe d t o requir e remova l o f onl yth e VOHA P contribute d b

yth e Grou

p 1 wastewate r streams . Followin g wastewate r treatment , al l residual s remove d fro mth e proces s mus t als o b e treate d properly . 8 . Alternativ e Treatmen t Provision s (Figur e 61 . Wastewate r stream s generate d withi n ne wunit s canno t choos e th e treatmen t alternative s i n Figur e 6 t o achiev e complianc e fo r Tabl e 8 HAP's . Al l othe r wastewate r stream s maychos e th e Figur e 6 treatmen t alternatives , provide d th e wastewate r stream s ar e no t mixe d wit h wastewate r stream s fro mothe r units . Th e treatmen t standard s illustrate d i n Figur e 6 ar e applicabl e onl yi f al l wastewate r stream s generate d withi n th e same proces s uni t ar e considere d together . Thi s doe s no t mea n tha t al l wastewate r stream s wil l requir e treatment . Th e decisio n whethe r a wastewate r strea

mrequire s treatmen t i s base d o n tota l VOHA P averag e concentratio n a t th e poin t wher e th e wastewate r strea mi s firs t expose d t o th e atmospher e o r combine d wit h wastewater s fro m othe r proces s units . Al l wastewate r stream s generate d withi n th e uni t an d having concentration s greate r tha n o r equa l t o 1 0 part s pe r millio n b y weigh t befor e exposur e t o th e atmospher e o r wastewater s fro m othe r proces s unit s must :

- recycl e t o a process , o rP.4 7

DRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Onl y

- reduc e tota l VOHAP concentratio n fo r eac h wastewate r strea mt o les s than 1 0 part s pe r millio n b yweight . Using thi s alternative , al l stream s generate d withi n th e uni t mus t compl ywit h th e 1 0 ppm wconcentratio n standar d o r b e recycle d t o a proces s uni t befor e contac t wit h th e atmospher e o r wastewater s fro

mothe r units . Fo r th e treatmen t alternative s presente d i n Figure s 4 an d 5 , HA P concentratio n measurement , an d therefor e Grou

p 1 wastewate r strea mdetermination , i s mad e befor e th e wastewate r strea menter s a wast e managemen t unit . Th e Figur e 6 alternativ e allow s th e 1 0 ppm wconcentratio n standard t o b e applie d afte r th e strea mha s bee n treate d i n a wast e managemen t uni t locate d i n th e same proces s uni t area . I t i s importan t t o not e tha t th e 1 0 ppm w concentratio n determinatio n i s mad e befor e exposur e t o th e atmospher e o r wastewater s generate d withi n othe r proces s units . No t al l wastewate r stream s ar e require d t o pas s through th e wast e managemen t unit ; however , al l wastewate r stream s generate d withi n th e proces s uni t mus t b e measure d agains t th e 1 0 ppm wstandard . Residual s produce d b yth e treatmen t proces s mus t als o b e treate d properly . 9 . Treatmen t o f Residual s (Figur e 71 . Residual s produce d i n th e wastewate r treatmen t proces s mus t b e controlle d fo r emissions . Residual s includ e oi l phases , condensates , vapo r streams , an d some sludge s whic h ar e remove d from wastewate r streams . Eac h wast e managemen t uni t tha t handle s residual s befor e an d during treatmen t mus t b e controlle d fo r emission s using th e contro l technique s specifie d b yth e propose d standard . Thre e alternative s ar e availabl e fo r treatin g residuals . Thes e are : (1 ) retur n th e residua l t o th e process , o r

(2 ) retur n th e residua l t o a treatmen t device , o r (3 ) destroyth e tota l VOHA P mas s flowrat e o f th e residua l b

ya t leas t 9 9 percent . 10 . Emission s Averaging . Thi s guid e doe s no t explor e emission s averaging . Emission s averaging i s a regulatoryoptio n tha t reduc e emission s facility-wide . Emission s averaging ma y encompas s wastewate r streams . 11 . Summary . Al l o f th e regulatoryoption s use d t o evaluat e potentia l control s fo r thes e source s ar e base d o n comprehensiv eDRAFT—Fo r Discussio n Purpose s Uni y' ^ ^ P4 8

contro l o f wastewate r stream s fro mth e point s o f generatio n throug h transport , handling , an d fina l treatment . Th e wastewate r stream s mus t b e treate d t o remov e o r destro yorgani c HAP' s tha t woul d otherwis e b e emitte d during wastewate r collectio n an d treatment . Figur e 8 . i s provide d a s a n summar

yo f th e HO

Nwastewate r operation s decision-makin g process . Th e propose d contro l provision s provid e man yalternativ e requirement s i n orde r t o allowfacilitie s a high degre e o f flexibilit yi n complyin g wit h th e standard . Becaus e o f th e flexibilit yprovided , th e propose d standar d i s comple x i n term s o f determining whic h wastewate r stream s mus t b e controlle d an d th e leve l o f contro l require d fo r wastewate r stream s generate d b y ne wan d existin g SOCM I proces s units . Thi s guid e ha s bee n writte n a s an ai d i n introducing th e HO N wastewate r regulation . Mor e informatio n wil l b e availabl e i n th e preamble , background informatio n documents , an d th e draf t regulation . Th e informatio n i n thi s guid e i s base d o n th e draf t regulatio n an d wil l chang e a s th e regulatio n continue s t o develo p an d underg o interna l reviews . Thi s mean s som e o f th e guid e informatio n i s subjec t t o reconsideratio n a s th e draf t regulatio n evolve s int o th e propose d an d fina l regulation .

Update : FE B 199 2

1 0Do Fo r Eac h Proces s Uni t

Ou t

No Ye s

Ye s

Figure 1 . HO N Wastewate rOperation s ApplicabilityDetermin e Concentratio n (Cone. ) o fTabl e 8 Compound s an d Flo w Rate fo rEac h Strea m a

t Poin t o f Generatio n D o Fo rEac h Wastewate rStrea m

Figru e 2 . Ne wProces s Unit s - Determinatio n o fGrou p 1 Wastewate r fo rTabl e 8 HAP' sYes Fro m existin g unit o r ne wunit no t subjec t t o Tabl e 8 HA P contro l requirements ? an d no t mixed wit h WW stream s fro m othe r units ? D o Fo rEac h Wastewate rStrea m Determin e Tota l VOHA P Cone , an d Flo

wRate fo rEac h Strea m a t Point o fGeneratio n

Yes Determin e Source Tota l VOHA P Mass Flo wRate (ca n b e don e afte r controlled treatment

) fro m Al l Stream s Whic h Ar

e Abov e Flo wan d Cone , a t Point o fGeneratio n

Figure 3 . Existin g an d NewProces s Unit s - Determinatio n o

fGrou p 1 W WStream s fo rTabl e 9 HAP' sContro l fo rAi r Emission s fro m Eac h Wast

e Managemen t Unit tha t Handles Strea m Befor e an d Durin g Treatment/Recycl e

N o - On e Grou p 1 Strea m

1 . Recycl e t o proces s

o r 2 . Treat eac h Tabl e 8 HAPto<10pp m o r 3 . Instal l an d Treat Strea m wit h Desig n Stea m Strippe r 1 . Reduce t o process o r 2 . Reduce Tabl e 8 HAP' s (whic h are a 1 0 ppmwbefor e combination ) i n combined strea m b

y 99 % o r 3 . Instal l an d Trea

t Combine d Strea m wit h Desig n Stea m Strippe r

o r 4 . Trea t Combine d Strea m t o Achiev e Required Mass Remova l

8 Figure 4 . NewProces s Units - Treatmen t Requirement sFrom existin g uni

t o r ne wunit no t subjec t to Tabl e 8 HA P contro l requirements ?

an d No t mixe d wit h w wstream s fro m othe r units ? Ye s

Properly Contro l Ai rEmission s fro m Eac h Wast e Managemen t Unit tha t Handles Strea m Befor e an d Durin g Treatment/Recycl e

No-on e o r mor

e Grou p 1 stream s

Contro l Options : 1 . Recycl e to proces

s o r 2 . Trea t wit desig n stea m strippe r

or 3 . Treat t o achiev

e 99 % reductio n i n tota l VOHA P Mass Flo wRates o r 4 . Trea t to achiev

e tota l VOHA P concentratio n < 5 0 ppmw

o r 5 . Trea t to achiev

e % reduction s i n Mass Flo w Rat e fo r eac h Grou p o

fHAP' s i n Tabl e 9 Yes-on e o rmor e Grou p 1/Grou p 2 stream s

Contro l Option s fo rCombined Stream : 1 . Recycl e t o process

o r 2 . Treat wit h desig n stea m strippe r

o r 3 . Treat t o achiev

e 99 % reductio n i n tota l VOHA P Mass Flo

wRat e o r 4 . Treat t o achiev

e % reduction s Mass Flo w Rate s fo r eac h Grou p o

fHAP's i n Tabl e 9 o r 5 . Trea t t o achiev

e required tota l VOHA P mas s remova l

Trea t Residual s Remove

d fro m Wastewate r Strea m G o t o Figur

e 7

Figur e 5 . Existin g an d NewProces s Units - Treatmen t Provision sContro l fo rAi r Emission s Eac h Wast

e Managemen t Unit Handlin g o r Treatin g Wastewate rStream s Generate d Withi n Process Unit (al l stream s i n a unit mus t b e treate d b

y these provision s i

fthi s optio n i s selected. )
Eac h strea m generate d withi n process unit ma

y b e handle d individually , o rma

y b e combined wit h othe r stream s fro m sam e process unit . Determin e Tota l VOHA P cone . fo r individua l stream s a

t point o f generation , fo r combined stream s a t point followin g combinatio n an d befor e exposur

e t o atmospher

e

Yes 1 . Recycl e t o Process

o r 2 . Trea t Strea m t o Achiev

e a Tota l VOHA P Cone . <1 0 ppmw

Figure 6 . Proces s Uni t Alternativ e Treatmen t Provision sContro l fo r Ai r Emission s Eac h Wast e Managemen t Uni t that Handle s Residua l Before an d Durin g Treatment/Recycl e

Fo r Al l Residuals : 1 . Recycl e t o Proces s

o r 2 . Retur n t o Treatmen t Proces s

o r 3 . Destroy Tota l VOHA P Mas s Flo wRate 99 %

Figur e 7 . Treatmen t o

fResidual sTreatmen t an d Control s t o Meet Ne

wan d Existin g Treatmen t Standard s Treatmen t an d Control s to Mee t Existin g Treatmen t Standard s 

### N o Grou p 2 W WStrea m



# Figure 8 . HO N Wastewate rOperation s

T J