P. 1



# RCRA Box 1883 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 101 ) ll-B-263 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/3/200810:42:17

AM Sheet 101 ofl 71P. 2



## RADIA N

MEMORANDU

M 

## A-90-1 9 ll-B-26 3

DATE : SUBJECT : FROM : TO : February14 , 199 2

Nationa lImpact s Scalin g Procedur efonl|,kvi|jl l tocJ?C^P^fej'lr r Th eHO NImpact s Analysi s JU^J ' ~"" * S.'l l Bennet t Kin g f' j $EP• ' 4 /99 2\\'i

3 hr~-f Jane t S . Meyer , EPA/SDB 

## •S^^^Ki T Thi s mem o describe s th e metho d use d t o develop estimate s o f nationa l emission s an d contro l impact s reflectiv e o f a give n regulatoryoptio nfo r th e leve l C chemica l productio nprocesse s (CPP's) . Contro l impact s includ e emissio nreductions , costs , othe r environmenta l impacts , an d increase s i nenerg yusag e resulting fro

mapplicatio no f emissio ncontrols . Briefly , leve l C CPP' s ar e thos e fo r whic hlittl e informatio n wa s availabl e fro mth e dat a gathering an d engineering analysi s processes . Thes e ar e i ncontras t t o leve l Aan d B CPP' s fo r whic hmuc hbette r informatio nwa s availabl e an d fo r whic h estimate s o f emission s an d contro l impact s wer e mad e using a mode l emissio n sourc e approach . Th e differenc e betwee nleve l A , B , & C CPP' s i s describe d i n detai l in th e memo title d "HO NSOCM I Characterization. " Th e mode l emissio n sourc e approac hfo r estimating emission s an d contro l impact s i s describe d in th e Hazardou s Organi c NESHAP (HON ) backgroun d informatio ndocumen t (BID) , Volume IA , Chapte r 4 , Estimatio n Methodology . Estimate s fo r leve l ACPP' s wer e relie d o n i ndeveloping estimate s fo r the leve l C CPP's . Base d o n th e result s o f th e SOCM I characterizatio n , leve l C CPP' s ar e believe d t o b e manufacturing processe s fo r smal l productio n volume specialt ychemicals . Nationa l productio n capacit yinformatio n wa s availabl e fo r some leve l C CPP's . I t showe d a mea n productio n capacit yo f 11.6 2 Gg/yr an d a rang e fro

m .00022 7 Gg/yr t o 17 9 Gg/yr . Fo r purpose s o f th e impact s analysis , i t wa s assume d tha t th e entir e nationa l productio n capacit yfo r eac hleve l C CP P wa s produce d a t a singl e proces s unit . Th e know

n value s o f productio n capacit yfo r leve l C CPP' sP. 3 I

overlappe d wit hth e smalles t 5 percen t o f th e leve l Aproces s

unit s whic hhav e a mea n productio ncapacit yo f 12.9 6 Gg/yr an d a rang e fro

m.00022 5 Gg/yr t o 36.2 9 Gg/yr . Therefore , i t wa s conclude d tha t impact s estimate s tha t had bee ndevelope d fo r smal l leve l Aproces s unit s coul d b e use d t o estimat e impact s for leve l C CPP's . Nationa l emission s an d contro l impact s wer e estimate d fo r th e five kind s o f emissio n point s regulate d i n th e HON : proces s vents , storag e tanks , transfe r loading operations , equipmen t leaks , an

d wastewate r collectio n an d treatmen t operations . Th e portio n o f nationa l impact s attributabl e t o th e leve l C CPP' s wa s estimate d independentl yfo r eac hkin d o f emissio npoin t using a two-step proces s fo r eac hregulatoryoption . I nth e firs t step , averag e value s fo r emission s an d contro l impact s reflectiv e o f a give nregulatoryoptio nar e calculated . I nth e secon d step , th e numbe r o f leve l C proces s unit s expecte d t o hav e t o appl y emissio ncontrol s unde r a give nregulatoryoptio nwa s determined , an d th e averag e value s fo r contro l impact s determine d i nth e firs t step wer e assigne d t o thi s se t o f proces s units . Thi s procedur e wa s judge d t o develop representativ e estimate s o f nationa l impacts . However , i t doe s produc e a differen t estimat e o f baselin e emission s fo r eac hregulatoryalternative . Further , th e nationa l percen t o f emissio n reductio nachieve d a s compare d t o th e informatio n use d fo r decision-making (emission s an d contro l impact s fo r leve l ACPP' s only ) i s distorte d becaus e a differen t subse t o f emissio n point s ar e use d t o develop averag e value s o f emission s an d contro l impact s fo r eac hregulatory option . Thes e tw o step s ar e describe d below . Step 1 : Averag e emission s an d contro l impact s value s fo r leve l C CPP' s wer e base d on th e averag e estimate s fo r th e smalles t 5 percen t o f leve l Aproces s units . Based o n th e similarit yi nproductio ncapacit yvalues , relying o n th e estimate s o f emission s an d contro l impact s fo r th e smalles t 5 percen t o f th e leve l A proces s unit s fo r developing estimate s fo r th e leve l C CPP' s (proces s units ) wa s judge d t o provid e reasonabl y

# r P. 4

representativ e values . Onl yproces s unit s tha t woul d b e require d t o appl yadditiona l contro l fo r th e specifi c emissio n sourc e typ e unde r a give nregulatory optio n wer e use d i n calculating th e averag e values . Thi s restrictio nprovide s differen t averag e value s fo r emission s an

d contro l impact s fo r differen t regulatory option s an

d resulte d i nvalue s bette r reflecting the give n regulatoryoption . I f proces s unit s withou t contro l impact s (i.e. , thos e no t require d t o appl y additiona l controls ) wer e used , calculatio no f th e averag e impact s pe r proces s uni t woul d b e dilute d wit h a numbe r o f proces s unit s contributing zer o t o th e numerato r (impacts ) bu t being include d i nth e denominato r (numbe r o f proces s units) . Thi s woul d resul t i n unrealisticall ylow(or zero ) value s fo r averag e contro l impacts . Thi s procedure , however , produce d differen t estimate s o f baselin e emission s fo r eac hregulatoryoption . Step 2 : Averag e emission s an d contro l impact s wer e no t applie d t o al l leve l C proces s units . Regulatoryoption s di d no t requir e contro l o f al l emissio n points . I nfact , unde r mos t options , th e smalle r emissio n point s wer e no t require d t o appl ycontrols . Therefore , averag e emission s an

d contro l impact s wer e assigne d t o a subse t o f th e leve l C emissio npoints . Becaus e regulatory optio n criteri a (e.g. , tank siz e an d chemica l vapo r pressur e fo r storag e tanks ) wa s no t availabl e fo r leve l C emissio npoints , theycoul d no t b e evaluate d fo r inclusio n o r exclusio nunde r a regulatoryoptio nin th e same manne r a s leve l Aemissio n points . Therefore , th e numbe r o f leve l C emissio npoint s tha t woul d be require d t o appl yemissio n contro l compare d t o th e tota l numbe r o f leve l C emissio n point s wa s assume d t o b e i n th e same proportio n a s fo r leve l Aemissio n point s fo r an

ygive n regulatoryoption . Fo r example , i f 7 0 percen t o f th e leve l Aemissio n point s wer eP. 5

« A

require d b ya particula r regulatoryoptio nt o appl y control , i t wa s assume d th e 7 0 percen t o f th e leve l C emissio n point s woul d b e require d t o appl ycontrol . Fo r tha t fractio no f leve l C emissio npoint s require d t o appl ycontro l unde r a give n option , th e contro l impact s wer e se t equa l t o th e averag e value s fo r th e smalles t 5 percen t o f th e leve l Aemissio npoint s (se e Step 1) . Fo r tha t fractio n o f leve l C emissio npoint s no t require d t o appl ycontro l unde r a give nregulatory option , th e contro l impact s wer e estimate d t o b e zero .

BK/als/LevelC.01 4P. 6

'_*< •

REFERENCE S

Memorandu

m fro mKing , B . S. , Radia nCorporation , t o Meyer , J . S. , EPA/SDB . HO NSOCM I Characterization . February14 , 1992 .