p. 1



# OAR Box 1875 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 46 ) ll-E-6 4 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:46

AM Sheet 46 of 86P. 2 ^



## - A-90-1 9 ' : 

### ll-E-6 4 SUMMAR Y O F TELECONFERENC E Date : Septembe r 29 , 199 2 Subject : Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Issue s o n th e Hazardou s Organi c NESHA P (HON ) Attendees : Bruc e Jordan , Directo r o f th e Emission s Standard s

Division , EPA Daphn e McMurrer , Emission s Standard s Division , EP A Ja n Meyer , Emission s Standard s Division , EPA Ric h Biondi , Deput yDirecto r o f th e Stationary Sourc e Complianc e Division , EPA Mami e Miller , StationarySourc e Complianc e Division , EP

A \ Scot t Throw , StationarySourc e Complianc e Division , •• ' EP A Jan e Engert , StationarySourc e Complianc e Division , EPA Charle s Garlow , Ai r Enforcemen t Division , EPA Richar d Sigman , Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Te d Cromwell , Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Kath yBailey , Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Annett e Stanley , Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Jo e Hovias , Unio n Carbid e Bria n Taranto , Exxo n Chemica l Chuc k Malloch , Monsant o John Dege , DuPon t Jac k McClure , Shel l Attache d i s a handou t EPAprovide d fo r thi s meeting . I t wa s th e primarysubjec t o f discussion . Th e discussio n wil l b e summarize d i n orde r o f th e issue s describe d i n th e handout . Bi o Unit s fo r Wastewate r Treatmen t EPAsough t CM

Acommen t o n th e outlin e fo r a preambl e discussio n o f biotreatmen t tha t wa s include d i n th e handout . CM A agree d t o commen t i n th e nex t fe wweeks . EPAstate d that , du e t o a desir e t o hav e th e HON[propose d i n th e nea r future , EPAwoul d begi n draftin g fro

mth e outlin e immediately . Recordkeepin g fo r Proces s Control s CM Apose d hypothetica l question s abou t wha t type s o f alternativ e dat a gatherin g an d storing system s migh t b e use d t o compl ywit h th e HON . EPAstate d tha t a mor e thorough discussio n o f thes e system s woul d b e essentia l befor e a determinatio n coul d b e made . EPAagree d t o see k commen t o n thi s issu e i n th e HO N preamble . Th e preambl e discussio n woul d specificall yreques t dat a abou t ho wthes e compute r controlle d monitorin g system s work .P. 3

Monitorin g an

d Violation s EPAbega n th e discussio n b yexplaining th e question s include d i n th e handout . CM Aagree d t o provid e answer s t o thes e questions , however , the ycautione d tha t i t woul d b e verytim e consuming t o cove r al l possibl e instance s i n detail , s o th e answer s woul d b e general . Emission s Averagin g EPAexplaine d th e pla n t o tak e commen t o n CMA' s ide a o f ho w th e quarterl yemissio n chec k requiremen t shoul d b e structured . Jac k McClure , o f CMA , propose d adding a n exceptio n t o th e quarterl y an d annua l emission s balance s requiremen t fo r situation s i n whic h tota l actua l emission s wer e lowe r tha n tota l anticipate d (an d permitted ) emissions . EPAagree d t o conside r thi s idea . 1 Attachmen tP. 4



### AGEND A CMA/EP A MEETIN G O N TH E HO N SEPTEMBE R 29 , 199 2

Issu e 1 : Bi o Unit s fo rWastewate rTreatmen t Issu e 2 : Recordkeepin g fo rProcess Control s Issu e 3 : Monitorin g an d Violation s Issu e 4 : Emission s Averagin gP. 5



### Outlin e fo rPreambl e Paragraph o n Bi o Units 

# BSflF

F

Introduction . Draf t proposa l fo r HONrequire s bi o unit s t o mee t same contro l efficienc ya s a stea mstripper . Severa l concern s hav e bee n raised : shoul d wel l operate d an d maintaine d bi o unit s i n conjunctio n wit h trappe d drain s an d collectio n system s defin e th e floor ? ha s th e appropriat e referenc e contro l technolog y (RCT ) bee n selected ? wil l existing treatmen t system s installe d t o mee t othe r rul e requirement s hav e t o b e augmente d b y stea mstripper s t o compl ywit h HON ? Discussio n o f Floor . EPAanalysi s o f floo r contro l wa s base d o n standard s fo r ai r emissions . EP Adi d no t hav e th e informatio n neede d t o evaluat e performanc e achieve d becaus e o f th e CW

Ao r othe r rules . Factor s suggestin g ther e mayb e a floo r leve l o f contro l fo r wastewate r are : biologica l treatmen t unit s ar e commonl yuse d t o mee t effluen t limitation s establishe d unde r CW A industr yha s reporte d i n th e las t fe wmonth s tha t commo n practic e i s t o hav e trappe d collectio n system an d tha t man

yfacilitie s als o hav e covere d ponds , lagoons , etc .

• i f wastewate r collectio n system s ar e typicall y controlle d dow

n t o th e bi o unit , the n ther e mayb e a floo r leve l o f contro l

• i f so , mus t evaluat e additiona l option , including effect s o n cost s fo r stea mstripping compound s no t readil ybiodegrade d T o determin e i f ther e i s a floo r an d th e performanc e achieve d a t a floo r define d b ybi o units , nee d to :

• determin e an d documen t representativ e wastewate r collectio n an d treatmen t system design s fo r SOCM I

• defin e performanc e achieve d b ybes t performin g 12 % o f th e source sP. 6 

# 1H. I

• identif ycharacteristic s o f goo d system s

• identif yrepresentativ e practice s Selecte d Referenc e Contro l Technolog y(RCT) . Question s concerning th e appropriat e referenc e technolog ycontro l hav e bee n raised . Th e stea mstrippe r wa s chose n a s th e RC T becaus e th e informatio n EPAha d showe d i t i s th e mos t universall yapplicabl e technology . Th e selecte d RC T i s bein g reviewe d because : i n some case s bi o unit s ma yachiev e a hig h degre e o f contro l

• nee d t o evaluat e wha t tha t performanc e i s an d characteristic s o f thes e system s t o evaluat e bi o units , nee d additiona l informatio n o n wastewate r collectio n system s an d othe r informatio n outline d i n Reques t fo r Dat a belo w i f th e necessaryinformatio n i s received , EP Awil l evaluat e contro l option s base d o n bi o treatmen t an d conside r whethe r t o issu e a supplementa l proposa l fo r us e o f bi o treatmen t a s a separat e RC T Reques t fo r Data . efficienc yo f bi o unit s i n term s o f mas s remova l design an

d operatin g parameter s model s t o predic t biodegradatio n rate s cost s collectio n systemdesig n compound s no t efficientl ydegrade d i n bi o unit s

2 8 Se p 9 2P. 7 

### Recordkeepin g Issue : Ca n system s tha t d o not record dat a unles s ther e i s a

excursio n b

e used fo rcompliance wit h th e HON ? EP A Response : o Differen t syste m fro m past practic e

Historicall y require d evidenc e tha t sourc e wa s actuall y i n compliance , not jus t proofofwhe n th e source wa s ou t ofcompliance o Enhanced Monitoring/Complianc e Certificatio n (Titl e VII ) requires tha t source' s certify period s o fcomplianc e o However , since th e issu e deal s wit h differen t type s of monitorin g system s fro m wha t i s traditionall y used , EP A i s willin g t o conside ralternative requirement s o Fo rHO N proposal , EP A willin g t o tak

e commen t o n thi s issu e Nee d mor

e inf o abou t thes e system s Nee d t o conside rwha t type s ofrequirement s are appropriate t o judg e th e effectivenes s ofa particula rsyste m Fo rsystem s tha t monito rdifferen t parameter s tha n wha t i s liste d i n th e HON , nee d t o bette r understan d ho wth e monitore d parameter s relat e t o emission s o Inf o gathere d durin g commen t perio d wil l b e used t o determin e policy fo rpromulgatio nP. 8



### HO N Compliance an d Operatin g Parameters Issues : 1 ) Wha t shoul d b e define d a

s complianc e wit h th e HON ? 2 ) Shoul d a numbe ro fparamete rmonitorin g excursion s b

e excusable ? 3 ) I fso , ho wshoul d th e syste m o fexcusabl e paramete rexcursion s be structured ? Backgroun d

EP A considerin g th e use ofparamete rmonitorin g as a n indicato rofprope roperatio n an d maintenanc e an d allowin g som e numbe r("x" ) o fexcursion s beyon d th e source' s pre-set paramete rboundary . Complianc e woul d be define d a

s havin g fewe rtha n "x " excursion s i n th e relevan t monitorin g period . Currently , th e HON' s monitorin g provision s consist of : (1 ) equipmen t inspection s (e.g. , by-pas s lines , close d ven t systems) ; (2 ) paramete rmonitorin g ofvapo rcontro l device s (e.g. , temperatur e monitorin g i n a n incinerator) ; an d (3 ) "wor k

practice " provision s fo rcertai n type s o f carbo n adsorbers . Regardin g # 2 paramete rmonitoring : There i s som e variatio n amon g th e kind s ofpoints , but , i n general , th e monitorin g dat a are average d ove r3 - hou rperiods .P. 9



### HO N Complianc e an d Operatin g Parameters cont . Question s 1 . Genera l a . I n a scenari o wher e source' s set thei row n paramete rranges , EP

A must bette runderstand : i n whic h cases ar

e excursion s likel y t o happe n (certai n kind s o

fpoints o rkind s ofdevices)? ; wha t effort s ar

e neede d t o preven t excursions? ; wha t i s neede d t o sto p on-goin g excursions? ; Ho wlon g shoul d i t tak e t o sto p a n excursion ? b . EP A need s CM A t o identif y cause s fo rexcursion s outsid e th e paramete rboundaries tha t a source woul d set fo rthemselve s i n th e permit , suc h as :

operatin g variations ? contro l devic e "malfunctions" ? others ? 2 . Scope a . Shoul d paramete rmonitorin g fo rGrou p 2 points be treate d differentl y tha n monitorin g ofdevice s controllin g Grou p 1 points ? Fo rexample , vent s maintainin g a TR E > 1 wit h recover

y o rfacilitie s tha t mee t facility wid e tota l wast e quantity provision s b . Shoul d th e syste m ofexcuse d period s b e used onl y fo rcontinuou s paramete rmonitorin g provisions ?P.1 0



### HO N Complianc e an d Operatin g Parameters cont . Question s cont . 3 . Numbe ran d duratio n o fexcuse d periods : a . Wha t unit s o

ftim e shoul d be use d t o defin e excuse d periods ? On e 3-hou raverag e A n operatin g da

y Specif y b y poin t an d contro l devic e used (whateve rth e monitorin g frequenc y o ftha t device ) b . Ho wshoul d th e excuse d period s be allocated ?

pe rcontro l devic e pe rproces s uni t pe rplan t by numbe ran d typ e o fcontro l devic e (th e ite m tha t must be monitored ) c . Ho wca n EP

A determin e th e numbe rofexcuse d excursion s tha t equat e t o prope roperatio n an d maintenance ? 4 . I fa wor k

practic e approac h t o th e paramete rmonitorin g requirement s i s t o be developed : a . Wha t ar

e appropriate follow-u p actions ? b . Shoul d th e require d follow-u p action s be liste d specificall y o rgenerically ? c . I n wha t tim e must th e action s be completed ?P.1 1



### Emission s Averagin g Issue : Ho wshoul d th e quarterl y emission s chec k o n emission s be structured ? EP A Idea : o Quarterl y chec k

o n emission s base d o n a compariso n o f tha t quarter' s credit s an d debit s o Sourc e allowe d t o hav e debit s = (1.2 5 * credits ) withou t a violatio n o Benefit s ofEP

A system : Eas y t o calculate ; an d Impose s n o absolute ca p o n emission s o Doe s have th e illogica l resul t o fa chanc e fo rviolation s whe n th e tota l volum e o femission s i s lowe rtha n th e source ha d anticipate d (an d permitted ) fo rth e averag e CM A Idea : o Allo wth e source t o se t a "cap " fo reac h quarte rbased o n th e stric t applicatio n ofMAC T N o violation s unless actua l emission s ar e highe r tha n th e "allowed " emission s leve l o Requires a calculatio n o f"allowabl e emissions " o Set s absolute emissio n limit s Resolution : o Propose EP

A option , seekin g commen t o n th e quarterl y facto r(shoul d th e # be 1.2 5 o rwhat? ) o Also , Explai n an d see k commen t o n CMA' s ide a