P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1875 Prepped by Ollie Stewart

Document

Number: 

# 57 ) ll-F- 4
Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:47

AM Sheet 57 of 86P. 2 

### A-90-1 9 ll-F- 4

Attache d ar e material s distribute d b yth e EP Aa t a meetin g wit h OM B o n Jun e 11 , 1992 . Belo w i s a lis t o f attendees
.
EP A Ja n Meye r Daphn e McMurre r Bruc e Jorda n Lydi a Wegma n Andre w Oti s Patrici a Embre y LarryWeinstoc k Charli e Garlo w OM B Ti mHun t Tro yHillie r Ric k Belze r Shantal e Won g



### o ) B___JL___,! r 

### l ! Jli i DE C I I 199 2 ;i"J

. EP A AI R DOCKE

TP. 3



### Hazardou s Organi c NESHA P (HON )

Jun e 11 , 1992P. 4



### EMISSION S AVERAGIN G FO RTH E HO N

GOAL : Equa l o r

greate r emission s reduction s A t alowe r cos t B y providin g flexibility Fo r source s wit

h unusual characteristic s Tha t caus e unusuall y hig h contro l cost sP. 5

SCOP E Setb y definitio n of

"Source " SOCMI chemica

l manufacturin g units Regulate d b y HO N I n a contiguou s are a Unde r common contro l Ca n averag e acros s Differentproces s units DifferentHAPs Vents , tanks , transfer , wastewate r Equipmentleak s exclude d from averagin g Re g ne g standard canno tb e assigne d a singl e referenc e contro l efficiency Includin g leak s woul d complicat e implementatio n Ne w separate from existin g "Reconstructed " ha s ne w sourc e MACT , considere d a ne w and separate sourc eP. 6

COMPLIANC E Complianc e system designe d t o ensur e Tha temission s wit

h averagin g are lowe r tha n emission s woul d hav e bee n withoutaveragin g Thataveragin g doe s notdecreas e th e publi c healt h protectio n provide d b y th e HO N Tha taverage s are straigh tforward t o implementan d enforc e Requirement

s Poin tb y pointcommitment s

• Fo r each pointi n th e averag e

• Monitoring , recordkeepin g an d reportin g requirement

s lik e Group 1 point

s

• Same enforcementopportunitie s as Group 1 points Emission s accountin g

• Some additiona

l monitorin g fo r dat

a elements i n th e emission s estimatio n equation s

• Specifi c emission s estimatio n equation s i n re g fo r consistency acros s source sP. 7

COMPLIANC E (continued ) Complianc e Perio d Emission s from point

s i n a n averag e mus t"balance " o n a quarterl y basi s —quarterly complianc e perio d Quarter s consis to

f monthly emission s estimate s Monthl y emission s estimate s ar e "rolled " fo r quarterl y calculation s System o f credits and debit

s use d t o plan and balanc e average s Debits generate d b y unde r contro l of Group 1 point

s (Referenc e Control Technology [RCT ] i s no tapplied ) Credits generate d b y ove r contro l o f Group 1 o r Group 2 point s Valu e o f debi to r credi tbase d o n differenc e betwee n th e "allowed " and "actual " emission s o f each poin t Discoun tfacto r als o influence s valu e o f credits generate d b y a

n ove r controlle d pointP. 8



### CREDIT S

• Contro l mus t

b e mor e stringen t

tha n HO N requirement s t o generat e credit s

• 3 way s t o generat e credits :

Controllin g Grou p 2 point s

• Wit h Referenc e Contro l Technolog y (RCT )

• With alternativ e technologie s Usin g highe r

efficiency control s tha n require d o n Grou p 1 point s

• Canno t

clai maRC T operate s abov e it s Referenc e Contro l Efficienc y (RCE )

• Alternativ e technologie s mus t hav e a n EP A assigne d efficienc y Pollutio n preventio n

• Fo r Grou p 1 o r

Grou p 2 point s

• Valu e of

credi t tie d t o productio n leve l

• Canno t

generat e credit s with : Productio n cutback s (excep t a s par t of pollutio n prevention ) Pre-existin g controls , excep t

• Earl y Reductio n Control s

• Pollutio n preventio n sinc e 198 7P. 9



### HO N CONTRO L REQUIREMENT S

• Statutor

y goa l t o achiev e maximu

m degre e of

emissio n reductio n considerin g statutor y criteri a Cos t Nonai r qualit

y healt h an d environmenta

l impact s Energy impact

s

• Cos teffectivenes s (C/E ) use d t o conside r cos t

• Wate r pollutio n and soli d wast e implication s use d t o conside r nonai r qualit

y environmenta

l impact s

• Steam , natura

l ga s and electricit

y demand s use d t o conside r energy impact

sP.1 0



### COS T EFFECTIVENES S CONSIDERATION S Rang e o f C/ E value s considered : $11 7 t

o $28,000/Mg VO C C/ E value s - air toxic

s C/ E value s Contro l decision s fo r existin g rule s Crud e estimate s o f cance r benefit s pe r M g Incrementa

l VO C C/ E value s (198 9 $ ) SOCM I vents : Incr . $3,090/Mg [$1900/M g 1978$] Polymer s an d Resins : Incr . $1,400/Mg [$930/M g 1980$] Incrementa

l air toxic s C/ E value s (198 9 $) Benzen e NESHAP : $65

0 - $7,000/Mg Benzen e Wast e Operations : $28,000/Mg Viny l Chlorid e NESHAP : $1,500/Mg Cost s ar e consisten

twit h benefit s base d o n Benzen e NESHA P an d earlier HO

N ris k assessmen

t These benefi

testimate s d o no tinclud e noncance

r healt h effect s N o model s existfo r determinin

g noncance

r healt h benefit s 

## 8P.1 1



### QUALITATIV E CONSIDERATION S

HO N emission

s ar e VOC s Majorit y o f source s i n nonattainmen

tarea s Contro l wil l mak e othe r VO C controls unnecessar y Public perceptio

n is toxic s ar e mor e dangerou

s tha n VOC s Consistenc

y wit h pas tNSP S fo r sam e emissio n point s in the categor y is administrativel

y desirabl eP.1 2



### RATIONAL E FO RDECISION S
Genera l Point s

• Referenc e Contro l Technologie s ar e demonstrate d an d reasonabl e

• C/E estimate s fo r

th e selecte d option s ar e withi n rang e use d i n CA A cos t estimate s ($200 0 t o $5000/Mg )

• C/E estimate s fo r

th e selecte d option s ar e consisten t wit h previou s NESHA P benefit s analyse s

• Cos t

estimate s ar e overstate d Analysi s assume s eac h emissio n poin t i s controlle d individuall y Analysi s assume s th e mos t expensiv e mean s o f

complianc e fo r eac h poin t Rul e i s structure d t o provid e flexibility an d encourag e pollutio n prevention , bu t

thes e cos t

saving s ar e not

included :

• Multipl e RCT s

• Emission s averagin g

• Lo w emissio n potentia l exemption s

• Cost s ar e asmal l fractio n o f productio n cost s

• HO N facilitie s ar e considere d hig h ris k poin t source s

• HO N facilitie s ar e locate d i n populate d area s



### 1 0P.1 3

RATIONAL E FO RSPECIFI C POINT S
Proces s Vents :

• Larges t

contributo r

t o overal l emission s

• Cos t estimate s coul d b e overstate d TR E forma t

base d o n cos t

relate d factor s Vent s ca n b e co-controlle d fo r cos t saving s TR E forma t

allow s lowe r

cos t complianc e throug h produc t recover y an d proces s change s

• Significan t

contro l o

f VOC s

• Selecte d optio n consisten t wit h existin g rule s NSP S hav e margina l C/E o f $3,090/M g (199 0 $ )



## 1 1P.1 4

RATIONAL E FO RSPECIFI C POINT S

(continued )
Wastewater : Majo r contributo r t o overal l emission s - 2n d larges teffec to n costs an d reduction s of

rul e Importan tcross-medi a benefits from contro l atsourc e Les s groundwate r contaminatio n Reductio n i n volum e o

f hazardou s waste Cost s d o no tinclud e saving s from complianc e flexibility an d pollutio n preventio n option s include d i n rul e Significantco-contro l o

f VOC s

Transfer :

• Small emissio n reductio n potentia l

• C/ E estimate s significantly greate r than othe r points

• Technicall y limite d i n option s fo r complianc e flexibility



### 1 2P.1 5



### RATIONAL E FO RSPECIFI C POINT S

(continued ) Storage :

• Smal l Smal l emissio n reductio n potentia l C/ E estimate

s highe r tha n mos tothe r point s Contro l requirement

s coul d establis h reverse incentive

s

• Mediu

m Smal l emissio n reductio n potentia l Floor provide

s reasonabl

e emission s reductio n

• Larg e C/ E o f $2500/M g is reasonabl

e an d consisten

twit h margina l C/ E fo r NSP S Applicatio n o f controls save

s produc t— pollutio n preventio n



### 1 3P.1 6

States ' Issue s
Interpollutan t Trade s Draf t advise s source s t o avoi d trade s tha t woul d resul t i n increase d toxicity , set s n o explici t limit s o n interpollutan t trade s State s concerns : 1 ) Averagin g coul d resul t i n mor e ris k tha n poin t b y poin t complianc e 2 ) T o compl ywit h ris k base d Stat e statutes , the ywil l hav e t o disallo w averagin g or , a t least , certai n average s
Averagin g withi n Ne w Source s Draf t allow s averagin g withi n ne w sources , bu t no t betwee n ne w an d existin g source s State s concerns : 1 ) Mos t cost-effectiv e t o pu t state-of-the-ar t control s o n a t constructio n 2 ) "Unde r control " a t ne w source s i s inconsisten t wit h "floor " provision s i n 199 0 amendment s

Nee d fo r a Discoun t Facto r Draf t reguire s tha t credit s b e discounte d N o specifi c valu e reguire d Seekin g commen t o n a rang e o f 0 - 20 % Reason s fo r Discoun t Factor : 1 ) Saving s share d betwee n environmen t an d source ; 2 ) Cost s t o b e considere d i n settin g maximu memissio n reductio n requirements ; an d 3 ) Technica l concern s abou t emission s estimation
. State s hav e indicate d tha t th e Discoun t Facto r shoul d reflect : 1 ) I f HA P us e i s eliminate d (pollutio n prevention) ; 2 ) Heigh t o f th e emission s reduction ; an d 3 ) Th e emission s estimatio n o r quantificatio n process .Bas e Case

Facilit y

9 1 0 1 3 1 4 1 4 Cost

Withou t Averaging ($ ) 357,96 5 994,25 4 405,57 0 20,07 0 743,86 6 252,49 2 Emission

Reductio n Without Averagin g (Mg/Yr ) 1,207.8 1 1,643.1 0 752.60 0 5.72 7 13,322. 8 539.6 9 CostWit h Averaging ($ ) 356,03 0 862,12 7 388,05 6 19,68 2 738,35 7 243,91 1 Emissio n

Reductio n Wit

h Averagin g (Mg/Yr ) 1,207.9 2 1,647. 5 752.64 7 6.12 8 13,374. 0 540.0 1 Percent

Saving s

. 5 13. 3 4. 3 1. 9

. 7 3. 3 Ma

x Discoun t Facto r (% ) 19. 6 754. 3 14. 7 25. 2 9. 6 2.054 0 Averag e cos tsaving s fo r 6 facilitie s thataverage : 6.0 % Averag e cos tsaving s fo r al l 1 4 facilities : .99 %Cos tVariabilit

y Case *

Facilit y

1 4 9 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 4 Cost

Without Averaging ($ ) 967,02 6 328,24 0 465,35 5 994,25 4 389,59 1 527,24 1 26,09 1 Emission

Reductio n Without Averagin g (Mg/Yr) 13,372. 8 539.6 9 1,207.8 1 1,643. 1 1,514.1 7 752. 6 5.72 7 Cost

Wit h Averaging tit :i 943,15 4 311,60 5 455,46 0 862,12 7 386,92 2 487,87 6 21,26 2 Emission

Reductio n Wit h Averaging (Mg/Yr) 13,375. 5 540.0 1 1,207.9 2 1,647. 5 1,514.8 4 755. 3 6.12 9 Percent

Saving s

2. 5 5. 1 2. 1 13. 3 0. 7 7. 5 18. 5 Ma x Discount Facto r (% ) 25. 4 205. 4 19. 6 754. 3 139. 2 25. 3 25. 2
*Fo r thi s cas e th e cost

s fo r al l point

s requiring control s ar

e increased by 30 % an d th e costs fo r al l points no t requirin g control s ar

e decreased b

y 30% . This scenari o i s designed t o simulat e some of th e effectof

cos t variability . Average costsaving s fo r 7 facilitie s tha taverage : 6. 2 Averag e cos tsaving s fo r al l 1 4 facilities : 1. 0