p. 1



# OAR Box 1875 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 27 ) ll-E-4 5
Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:45AM

Sheet 27 of 86P. 2



# W 

# <£> A-90-1 9 ll-E-4 5 \ « S*> MEETIN G SUMMAR

Y

Ma-riufa'cturer

s Associatio n (CMA ) wit h th e Environmenta l Protectio n \« \ , This^ocumen t summarize s th e meeting o f th e Chemica l \ ^Agenc

y(EPA) , hel d o n Jun e 18 , 1992 , a t th e Nort h Carolin a Mutua l Lif e Buildin g i n Durham , Nort h Carolina
. Th e discussio n wa s divide d int o seve n sections : Recordkeeping an d Reporting , Monitoring , Complianc e Gridlock , Proces s Vents , Transfer , Implementatio n Plan , an d Storag e (se e Attachmen t A)
. Alis t o f participant s i s i n Attachmen t B . 1. 0 INTRODUCTION

Mr . Bruc e Jordan , directo r o f th e Emission s Standard s Divisio n (ESD) , welcome d th e CM Aan d indicate d tha t th e goa l o f th e meetin g woul d b e t o wal k through th e variou s issue s CM Ahad raise d a t previou s meeting s an d t o se e i f man

yo f thes e issue s coul d b e resolve d b yclarification
. Mr . Jorda n aske d i f CM Ahad an ygenera l question s befor e addressing th e seve n item s o n th e agenda
. Th e CM

Abega n b

yasking wha t th e curren t schedul e wa s fo r proposin g th e rule
. Mr . Jorda n indicate d tha t th e EPAha s bee n workin g wit h th e State s an d th e Nationa l Governor' s Associatio n an

d ha s bee n meetin g wit h th e Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge t (OMB)
. S o far , EPAha s bee n briefin g OM B o n th e content s o f th e regulation , s o th e EPAdoe s no t ye t kno wOMB' s positio n o n th e regulation
. Th e EPAplan s t o discus s wit h OM B th e correction s an

d clarifying change s t o th e regulatio n a s wel l a s provision s adde d t o provid e operationa l flexibility
. Mr . Jorda n conclude d th e discussio n b yindicating tha t th e EPA currentl ypredict s proposa l i n lat e October
. Next , CM

Aaske d i f theycoul d se e th e change s EPAi s making t o th e packag e befor e theyg o t o OMB . Mr . Jorda n sai d tha t CM A coul d se e draft s o f th e substantiv e change s resulting fro m discussion s betwee n EPAan d CM Aabou t CM

Aissues , bu t woul d no t

hon0792(ls ) 1P. 3

b e sen t mino r typographica l correction s an d othe r non-substantiv e changes
. Ms . Daphn e McMurre r o f th e EPA' s Standard s Developmen t Branc h (SDB ) distribute d a lis t o f th e majo r question s tha t had resulte d fro

mth e previou s EPA/CM Adiscussion
. Th e lis t wa s divide d int o th e seve n area s o f discussio n fo r th e presen t meetin g (se e Attachmen t C)
. 2. 0 RECORDKEEPIN

G AND REPORTIN

G

Ms . McMurre r bega n th e discussio n b ydistributin g tw o item s specifi c t o recordkeepin g an d reporting : (1 ) a lis t o f question s fo r whic h th e EPAi s currentl yseeking inpu t (Attachmen t D) , an d (2 ) a lis t o f potentia l draf t strategie s fo r reducin g th e curren t reportin g an

d recordkeepin g burde n t o industr y(Attachmen t E)
. Ms . McMurre r starte d th e discussio n wit h idea s fo r reducin g industryrecordkeeping/reportin g burde n (Attachmen t E)
. Sh e reviewe d fou r differen t approache s i n th e regulatio n an d invite d th e group t o discus s thes e alternatives
. Th e purpos e o f th e discussio n wa s t o ge t reaction s t o staf f leve l idea s o n method s t o reduc e th e burde n whil e assuring tha t necessaryinformatio n i s provided
. Discussio n o f Approac h I o n th e Handou t (Attachmen t E ) Th e firs t approac h (Approac h I i n Attachmen t E ) involve s an annua l complianc e certificatio n b yth e facility , rathe r tha n th e curren t periodi c reportin g approach
. CM A - Wha t doe s "certification " mea n i n ItemNo . 1 unde r Approac h I ? Doe s i t mea n tha t industryi s i n complianc e wit h al l emissio n limit s fo r th e whol e yea r o r jus t tha t industryha s followe d thei r pla n (e.g. , take n correctiv e actio n whe n the y discovere d a problem , eve n i f fo r a shor t tim e emission s wer e abov e th e limits)
. EP A - T o certif ycompliance , on e mus t b e assure d tha t th e sourc e me t it s emissio n limit
. However , i f thi s typ e o f systemwer e implemented , th e HONwoul d stil l requir e checkin g o n contro l hon0792(ls ) 2P. 4

equipmen t an

d th e operatio n o f it , 'not emissio n rates . Thi s woul d b e th e proces s fo r determining "certification. " CM A - Thi s alternativ e pla n seem s se t u p fo r industryt o wor k mor e wit h th e permitting authority , simila r t o th e curren t Texa s permi t process . EP A - Yes , however , i t woul d b e th e Titl e V operating permi t authority
. CM A - Coul d yo u clarif ywha t yo u mea n b yth e self-policing optio n (# 2 unde r Approac h I) ? EP A - Th e ide a i s tha t a n interna l industr yaudi t grou

p i s establishe d whic h report s directl yt o th e compan ypresident , o r i s otherwis e independent
. Thi s optio n ha s th e problemtha t i t migh t no t b e veryacceptabl e t o State s wh o ten d no t t o trus t self-policin g policies
. CM A - Doe s th e performanc e test , mentione d i n ide a No . 3 unde r Approac h I , carryal l th e burde n o f th e Genera l Provisions ? EP A - Yes , wit h th e exceptio n o f th e qualit yassuranc e pla n whic h doe s no t appl ybecaus e it' s alread yi n th e tes t method s use d t o determin e complianc e wit h HON . CM A - Wha t woul d a performanc e tes t involv e (e.g. , fo r a flare) ? EP A - Fo r incinerator s an d othe r testabl e controls , th e approac h unde r No . 3 woul d requir e annua l tests . Thi s coul d b e mor e testin g tha n currentl yi n th e HON . Storag e tanks , flares , an d othe r emissio n point s tha t canno t b e teste d woul d requir e calculatio n o f emission s b ysome othe r means . Discussio n o f Approac h I I (Attachmen t E ) Th e secon

d approac h (Approac h I I i n Attachmen t E ) describe s a n incentiv e system wher e th e recordkeeping an d reporting requirement s var ydependin g o n th e sources ' performance
. I t wa s note d tha t thi s alternativ e coul d significantl yincreas e th e complexit yo f th e regulatio n an d coul d increas e th e industry recordkeeping/reportin g burde n fo r source s wit h poo r records
. Genera l Reportin g an d Recordkeepin g Discussio n EP A - Wha t ar e CMA' s majo r concern s wit h respec t t o th e recordkeepin g an

d reporting burden ? hon0792(ls ) 3P. 5

CM A - Th e mai n proble mi s wit h keeping a larg e volum e o f informatio n readil yaccessible
. W e fee l man yo f thes e record s ar e o f mino r importanc e wit h respec t t o compliance , an d ye t w e coul d b e fine d fo r no t having a specifi c piec e o f paper , eve n i f i t ha s littl e t o d o wit h compliance
. EP A - Historically , enforcemen t action s hav e no t bee n undertake n i f on e recor d i s lost , a s long a s th e facilit ydoe s no t hav e a habi t o f losing records
. Th e EPAneed s man yo f thes e record s t o determin e an

d understand certai n non-complianc e situations
. CM A - W e ar e als o concerne d tha t th e dat a w e hav e mayno t b e i n a forma t tha t a n EPAinspecto r woul d like
. Fo r example , a t on e plan t operate d b

ya computer , th e compute r onl yrecord s an d store s record s whe n parameter s ar e ou t o f a pre-determine d range . I t doe s no t stor e record s whe n parameter s ar e withi n th e range . Thi s system

ha s greatl yreduce d th e numbe r o f operator s i n a facility
. However , suc h a systemwoul d no t satisf yth e HONa s currentl ydrafted
. I n addition , some olde r plant s ar e no t run wit h computers , bu t ar e rathe r operate d b yindividuals
. Curren t personne l woul d no t hav e tim e t o prepar e al l th e require d records
. EP A - Ho wman

yplant s hav e automate d records ? CM A - Man yplant s d o no t hav e automate d records ; however , mos t continuousl yoperatin g plant s ar e computer-controlled
. I t wa s suggeste d tha t a productiv e approac h woul d b e t o se t u p a workin g grou

p t o conside r an

d sugges t approache s t o reduc e th e burde n whil e maintainin g th e stringenc yo f th e standard
. I t wa s agree d tha t th e EPAan d CM Awoul d mee t o n Jul y1 7 t o wor k o n thes e questions
. Discussio n o f CM

AHandout s (Attachmen t F an d G ) Th e CM Apresente d thei r suggestion s fo r recordkeepin g an d reporting
. First , CM Asummarize d fou r issue s i n thei r handou t (third pag e o f Attachmen t F , o n reporting an d recordkeeping)
. Th e CM Aclarifie d th e thir d issu e o n thi s handout
. Fo r reportin g bot h test s an

d contro l devic e operating parameters , CM Asuggeste d tha t th e du e dat e b e 9 0 day s afte r th e en d o f th e reportin g
hon0792(ls ) 4P. 6

period , rathe r tha n 3 0 day s a s currentl yrequire d i n th e draf t HON . Th e EP Astate d tha t th e EPA' s complianc e divisio n migh t b e ope n t o thes e idea s an d tha t th e EP Aneed s t o verif ytha t thes e tim e period s ar e typica l fo r industr yi n producin g reports . Th e CMAthe n presente d thei r idea s fo r reducin g reportin g requirement s i n th e HO Nbyincorporatin g a concep t o f "exceptio n reporting " (Attachmen t G)
. Th e CMAexplaine d tha t i n th e draf t HON , som e reportin g requirement s ar e tie d t o event s whil e other s ar e tie d t o specifi c dates
. Th e CMAtrie d t o simplif ythi s comple x schedul e int o on e semi-annua l repor t tha t woul d summariz e al l th e relevan t reportabl e information
. Th e CMAassume d tha t reportin g o f change s (e.g. , operatin g change s tha t caus e a n emissio n poin t t o chang e fro mGrou p 2 t o Grou p 1 ) woul d fal l unde r permi t requirements
. However , th e EP A though t tha t th e permi t syste mwil l no t handl e thes e change s unles s th e HO No r anothe r regulatio n specificall yrequire s it
. Som e o f thes e change s ma yb e relativel ymino r an d no t involv e constructio n o r a majo r chang e i n operation ; thes e woul d no t trigge r a permi t revision , an d ma ynee d t o b e addresse d i n th e HON . Th e CMAindicate d tha t i t woul d loo k int o thi s issue
. Th e EP Aan d CMAconclude d tha t th e issu e shoul d b e discusse d a t th e Jul y1 7 wor k grou p meeting
. Th e EP Asuggeste d tha t CMAprovid e cas e studie s fo r plant s wit h eac h kin d o f emissio n point , discussin g wha t kind s o f interna l reportin g an d recordkeepin g the yalread ydo
. Th e EP A woul d the n loo k int o wha t th e curren t HO Ndraf t require s fo r eac h case , an d wha t th e ne widea s (discusse d i n th e EP Aan d CMA handouts ) woul d requir e fo r th e cas e studies
.
3. 0 MONITORIN G
Th e discussio n o f monitorin g concerne d th e questio n o f wha t . distinguishe s a violation , o r wha t differentiate s a n exceedanc e fro ma violation ?

hon0792(ls ) 5CM

A - [referring t o pag e 38 5 o f th e draf t HONwher e ther e i s a tabl e showing th e proces s vent s recordkeepin g an d reporting requirement s fo r boundaryparamete r exceedances ] - Wha t doe s th e "exceedance " mea n (e.g. , i f a combustio n devic e i s 5 1 degree s belo wth e valu e measure d during th e mos t recen t performanc e test , wha t doe s th e exceedanc e mean) ? EP A - A s drafte d i n th e Decembe r 24 , 199 1 versio n o f th e HON , a n exceedanc e i s no t a violation , bu t rathe r a n indicato r o f possibl e problem s o r exces s emissions
. I f th e contro l devic e i s operate d a s i t wa s during th e performanc e test , th e require d emissio n reductio n shoul d b e achieved
. Temperatur e value s belo w th e pre-specifie d range s indicat e tha t th e devic e ma yhav e a problem
. I f th e operatio n o f a contro l devic e change s suc h tha t i t continue s t o operat e ou t o f th e specifie d range , th e sourc e maynee d t o d o anothe r performanc e test , whic h i s th e onl ywayt o kno wwhethe r th e devic e i s meetin g it s limit
. Thi s i s th e same approac h take n i n previou s NSPS . CM A - W e ar e concerne d tha t thes e exceedance s mayb e viewe d a s violation s unde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA)
. Finally , EPAan

d CM Aagree d tha t th e EPAshoul d explicitl y stat e i n th e HONtha t monitorin g paramete r exceedance s o f th e draf t packag e ar e no t a violatio n o f th e emissio n standard
. Thi s wordin g shoul d b e pu t i n Subpar t F o r G . CM A - W e ar e concerne d tha t unde r differen t operatin g levels , w e ge t a grea t rang e i n value s fo r th e variou s parameter s (e.g. , temperature)
. Th e HO Nrequire s tha t w e measure temperatur e a t "representativ e conditions" , ye t i t i s ofte n difficul t t o establis h a "representative " temperatur e wit h on e performanc e tes t unde r on e se t o f operatin g conditions
. EP A - Ho wmuc h d o th e parameter s change ? Th e regulatio n allow s temperatur e variatio n up t o 5 0 degrees
. Th e EPAagree d t o discus s thi s issu e a t th e nex t meeting
.

hon0792(ls )P. 8

4. 0 COMPLIANC E GRIDLOC K
CM A - W e think subcategorizing th e HO Ni s a worthwhil e idea
. Conside r th e ide a o f having 3 group s o f chemical s wit h differen t complianc e schedules
. Thi s ide a wa s presente d i n th e May28 , 199 1 letter
. Othe r way s t o subcategoriz e woul d includ e ai r oxidatio n processe s versu s othe r reactor s an d halogenate d versu s nonhalogenate d compounds
. W e als o woul d lik e t o buil d languag e int o th e HO Nt o automaticall yallo wa 1-yea r extensio n fo r delay s beyon d a company' s control.
. Th e Clea n Ai r Ac t allow s 1-yea r extension s beyond th e 3-yea r complianc e time
. EP A - W e hav e no t ye t discusse d th e 1-yea r extensio n wit h th e Offic e o f th e Genera l Counci l (OGC)
. W e d o no t believ e th e EP A ha s th e lega l authorit yt o writ e a blanke t extensio n int o th e rule
. Sectio n 11 2 implie s tha t a n extensio n woul d b e case-by

cas e an d tie s extension s t o th e permit
. "Through th e permit " i s i n th e CA

Aclaus e o n complianc e extensions
. Th e CM Aan d EPAbot h though t i t migh t b e possibl e t o pu t some languag e i n th e preambl e o r guidanc e documen t encouraging th e implementing authorit yt o conside r extension s i n case s wher e complianc e i s no t possibl e du e t o circumstance s beyond a plant' s control
. Th e EPAhande d ou t a lis t o f option s fo r reducing th e burde n impac t associate d wit h th e 3-yea r complianc e schedul e currentl y i n th e rul e (Attachmen t H)
. Thes e option s wer e discusse d a s follows
. CM A - Wha t abou t altering th e effectiv e o r applicabilit ydat e fo r differen t subset s o f chemicals ? EP A - W e canno t creat e differen t effectiv e date s o r differen t applicabilit ydates
. Th e effectiv e dat e i s define d a s th e dat e o f promulgation
. I n addition , w e canno t exten d th e complianc e deadlin e beyond 3 year s afte r th e effectiv e date
. Th e statut e state s tha t ther e i s a maximu mo f 3 year s fo r compliance
. Th e

hon0792(ls ) 7P. 9

onl ywayt o stagge r complianc e woul d b e t o promulgat e th e regulatio n a t differen t time s fo r differen t subset s o f chemicals
. On e proble m

wit h staggere d complianc e i s tha t i f w e brea k HO Nint o subcategories , ther e can b e n o emission s averaging acros s subcategories-becaus e theywoul d b e separat e MAC T standards
. Thi s i s th e OGC' s curren t lega l position
. CM A - Ther e mayb e way s yo u coul d grou p chemical s int o subset s tha t woul d no t b e a t th e same facilitie s tha t woul d no t nee d t o d o emission s averagin g anyway . CM Aals o aske d i f EPAhad raise d thi s complianc e gridloc k proble mwit h th e Stat e an d Territoria l Ai r Pollutio n Progra m Administrator s (STAPPA)
. Theymigh t hav e some idea s fo r solutio n t o th e potentia l permi t backlo g problem
. EP A - W e wil l continu e t o rais e thi s issu e a t managemen t briefings
. W e ca n als o continu e t o pursu e th e non-regulatory option s i n Attachmen t H . 5. 0 PROCES S VENT S

Ms . Sheil a Millike n o f th e EPA' s SD B bega n th e discussio n b y requestin g clarificatio n o f CMA' s reques t tha t th e HONallo wus e o f anothe r contro l devic e (non-combustion ) t o achiev e 9 8 percen t reduction
. CM A - W e woul d lik e a provisio n tha t allow s u s t o us e scrubber s an d othe r non-combustio n devices , o r t o appl yt o th e permi t authorit yt o us e themo n a case-by-cas e basis
. EP A - W e maynee d t o ad d something t o th e ven t provision s t o allo wsomethin g othe r tha n a combustio n device , especiall ysinc e thi s optio n i s allude d t o i n th e monitorin g sectio n fo r proces s vents . W e coul d pu t i n a provisio n fo r a "non-recoverydevice " achievin g 9 8 percen t efficiency
. Th e inten t o f th e curren t draftin g i s t o ensur e us e o f destructio n device s tha t achiev e 9 8 percen t reduction s becaus e th e provision s alread yallo w recoverydevice s t o b e use d fo r complianc e i f the yrais e th e TR E o f th e ven t strea

mt o abov e 1.0
. hon0792(ls ) 8P.1 0

Ms . Millike n nex t reviewe d th e summaryo f CM Aconcern s on Proces s Vent s (Attachmen t C) , indicating thos e item s wher e question s remained
. Sh e sai d tha t o n pag e 3 (Complianc e Issues) , Item2 i s bein g researched , though th e EPAagree s wit h CM Atha t th e languag e need s t o b e clarified , an d th e EP

Ai s currentl y workin g o n ho wt o incorporat e th e idea s i n Item s 3 an d 5
. Sh e indicate d tha t o n pag e 4 (Proces s Vent s - Miscellaneous) , th e EPA i s stil l considering Item 2 , bu t al l othe r item s ar e decided
. Discussio n d f th e Matri x (Attachmen t C ) an d CMA' s Handout s (Attachment s F an

d I ) o n Proces s Vent s CM A - [i n respons e t o Pag e 1 , Item4 o f th e proces s vent s sectio n o f EPA' s matri x (Attachmen t C) ] - Base d o n some statistica l analysi s o f th e variabilit yo f th e parameter s i n th e TR E equations , w e determine d tha t fo r proces s vent s wit h a TR E abov e a certai n value , engineering knowledg e ca n b e use d instead o f emissio n testin g t o calculat e TR E an d determin e tha t th e emissio n poin t i s Grou

p 2
. I n some cases , engineering knowledg e o f key parameter s mayb e sufficien t t o determin e tha t a ven t i s Grou p 2 withou t performin g an yTR E calculation
. [Thi s topi c i s als o discusse d i n CMA' s handou t (Attachmen t F ) unde r Proces s Vents , Ite m1.5. ] EP A - W e woul d lik e some informatio n o n ho wCM Awoul d ge t "engineering knowledge " t o d o thi s statistica l analysi s an d t o estimat e TR E onc e th e regulatio n i s i n effec t i f yo u ar e no t testing
. Fo r distillatio n streams , i t mayb e difficul t t o kno w th e concentrations , HA P emissions , etc . CM A - W e wil l provid e thi s informatio n t o th e EPA . Additionally , w e woul d lik e th e EPAt o identif ywhic h stream s i n th e BI D tabl e ar e halogenate d versu s non-halogenated
. EP A - W e wil l provid e thi s information
. Th e EPAan

d CM Aagree d t o ge t a grou p togethe r t o discus s thi s issu e i n a teleconference
. Th e CM Aprovide d some draf t ne wlanguag e t o includ e unde r 63.115 , whic h woul d allo wbes t engineering estimate s fo r

hon0792(ls )P.1 1

determinin g TRE . (Se e th e Proces s Vent s sectio n o f Attachmen t F , Item1)
. Th e EPAan

d CM Aagree d t o arrang e a conferenc e cal l onc e thei r analyse s ar e complet e t o incorporat e a specifi c TR E value
. Th e CM Athe n presente d it s respons e t o Item 4 o f it s firs t handou t o n proces s vent s (Attachmen t F ) whic h concern s procedure s fo r a Grou

p 2 ven t becomin g a Grou p 1 vent . (Se e Attachmen t I. ) CM A - W e woul d lik e th e EPAt o clarif yi n th e HONtha t 63.115(c ) applie s t o change s tha t ar e no t Sectio n 112(g ) modifications
. EP A - W e ca n clarif ythi s point
. CM A - I n som e cases , w e nee d mor e tha n 18 0 day s afte r a Grou p 2 ven t become s a Grou p 1 t o instal l control s require d fo r complianc e an

d conduc t a performanc e tes t (i f necessaryfo r th e contro l devic e used)
. Onl yafte r a proces s chang e take s plac e ca n w e measur e TR E an d b e sur e i f it' s a Grou p 1 or.2
. A t tha t point , w e nee d mor e tha n 18 0 day s afte r a Grou p 2 ven t become s Grou p 1 t o instal l controls
. EP A - I n settin g th e 18 0 da ydeadline , w e assume d tha t b yth e tim e yo u mad e a change , yo u woul d kno wwha t contro l yo u neede d an d ad d th e devic e a t th e same tim e a s th e change
. Th e 18 0 day s t o conduc t a performanc e tes t an d achiev e complianc e seeme d adequat e fo r thi s scenario
. Give n thi s ne winformation , th e EPA wil l thin k ove r thi s issu e furthe r an d chec k int o 112(g)
. Thi s issu e need s t o coordinat e wit h 112(g)
. W e migh t conside r offsettin g thes e emission s during th e proces s o f installing th e contro l devic e beyond th e 18 0 da yperiod
. . W e mus t conside r wha t timefram e i s allowabl e i f i t doe s no t trigge r 112(g)
. CM A - [responding t o Item6 o n thei r handou t o n Pag e 5 o f Proces s Vent s (Attachmen t F ) dealin g wit h halogenate d ven t streams ] - W e stil l prefe r a haloge n concentratio n measuremen t (i.e. , measuremen t o f Cl , Br , Fl) , bu t woul d accep t measurin g b y compound , whic h i s currentl yi n th e draf t HON . W e als o woul d lik e t o mentio n a ne wissu e concernin g th e cos t effectivenes s o f scrubber s designe d t o achiev e 9 8 versu s

hon0792Us ) 1 0P.1 2

9 9 percen t efficiency
. (Th e draf t HO

Nwoul d requir e 9 9 percen t reduction. ) Th e EP Asai d tha t i t woul d revie wth e curren t languag e an d provid e CM

Awit h mor e informatio n regarding th e choic e o f 9 9 percen t efficiency
. 6. 0 TRANSFE R

Ms . Millike n o f th e EPAbega n b yreviewing th e lis t o f CM A comment s an

d question s i n Attachmen t C , pag e 5 o n transfe r operations
. Th e discussio n wa s limite d t o unresolve d issues
. Discussio n o f Item s 3 , 4 an d 7 (Attachmen t C ) Mr . Davi d Markword t o f th e EPAsummarize d Departmen t o f Transportatio n (DOT ) rule s concerning pressur e tes t certification
. Mr . Markword t indicate d tha t th e DO T doe s regulat e tank trucks , an d afte r 199 3 wil l requir e annua l testing
. H e sai d tha t th e DO T rul e als o indicate d tha t i t i s th e loader' s obligatio n t o load vessel s tha t sho wevidenc e tha t the yhav e bee n tested
. CM A - Wh ymus t w e us e Metho d 27 ? Wh yno t us e DO T testin g methods ? W e ar e als o concerne d wit h th e burde n o f keeping record s o f tank vapo r tightnes s a t th e chemica l plan t loading rack
. EP A - Th e EPA' s Emission s Measuremen t Branc h (EMB ) i s currentl y workin g o n determinin g i f Metho d 2 7 an d th e DO T method s ar e equivalen t tes t methods
. I f tha t i s th e case , th e DO T metho d coul d b e adde d a s a n optio n i n th e HON . Discussio n o f Item9 (Attachmen t C ) EP A - W e ar e no t oppose d t o th e concep t o f using a dom e collectio n device
. (Mr
. Markword t showe d CM Aa diagra

m tha t wa s give n t o hi m

o f thi s device. ) W e mayallo wthi s devic e a s an alternative
. I n orde r t o ad d a provision , w e woul d nee d t o figur e ou t th e wordin g t o allo wthi s an d b e sur e tha t i t i s a well-designe d system .

hon0792(ls ) 1 1P.1 3

Discussio n o f Item s 5
. 6
. an d 8 (Attachmen t C ) CM A - Concernin g Ite

m5 , th e every-two-minut e temperatur e monitorin g seem s excessive
. EP A - W e wil l conside r thi s issu e a s a ne wreporting an d recordkeepin g issue
. CM A - Concernin g Ite

m6 , CM Asupport s allowanc e o f vapo r balancing
. I t coul d eithe r b e assume d tha t vapo r balancin g i s equivalen t t o 9 8 percen t contro l s o tha t vapo r balancin g transfe r operation s woul d b e exemp t fro mth e requiremen t t o add furthe r controls , o r vapo r balancin g coul d b e allowe d a s a credit

generatin g alternativ e (Se e Attachmen t F , Transfer , Item3)
. EP A - W e ar e pursuin g languag e t o allo wvapo r balancin g a s a n alternativ e referenc e contro l technolog yunde r th e transfe r provisions
. I t migh t als o b e use d t o ge t averagin g credi t i f a sourc e ca n sho wi t get s ove r 9 8 percen t reduction
. However , thi s i s no t likel yt o b e a sizeabl e credi t becaus e transfe r emission s ar e relativel ysmall
. I t wa s als o agree d t o conside r makin g vapo r balancin g a n exemptio n i f th e vapor s fro m th e transfe r operatio n wer e vapo r balance d t o a pressur e vessel
. 7. 0 IMPLEMENTATIONPLA N

Ms . Daphn e McMurre r share d some idea s tha t th e EPA' s wor k grou p i s considerin g a s a n alternativ e t o th e curren t implementatio n pla n languag e (se e Attachmen t J)
. Th e EPA' s languag e wa s considere d i n ligh t o f CMA' s idea s i n thei r handou t (se e Attachmen t F , pag e 1)
. CM A - W e questio n th e lega l authorit yfo r th e EPAt o requir e a complianc e pla n o n non-averagin g point s prio r t o th e three-yea r complianc e time
. Th e CM Aals o believe s tha t th e implementatio n pla n fo r emission s averagin g point s shoul d b e du e si x month s prio r t o th e complianc e dat e rathe r tha n 1 8 month s afte r th e effectiv e date , a s propose d todayb yEPA .
hon0792(ls ) 1 2o 3 O

P> P -

3 • O M ro 3 ro 3 r t O J r t P O 3 T I M 0 ) 3 cr ro 0

y c ( 0 ro P - r t t r O J W

y M M
. ro D l OJ >< M j P - P " ro o.

y

• o ro H g P - r t > i- 1 ( A 0 ^ P - 3 ( 0 r t ( D P J a O M > ro X ro 3 • a r t P 3 v Q 0 1 H ) D > 0 P - M P - r t ^ M > M
. 0 3 T J

. 0 < P - Oa P 3 u Q O l 3 H r t £ P - P " M
r t D l * ro

y M ) ro £ 3 O 3 r t t r c n r t O n ro o ro P - < ro D l 3 C L d 3 Oa ro M
. c n r t D > 3 a it - s ' ro ri c P > ro • o 

## B
i w P - u 3 3 * r t ro ro 3 3 O 3 r t 3 * c n P - c n r t o 0 c n t r 0

. r t
r t O a o D l 3 P - 3 T J t-a ro 3 ro 3 r t D > r t P O 3 T J D l 3 • P > 0 0 3 O 3 r t 3 * W •

P J t r ro * < t r ro M P ro < ro r t 3 " ro ri ro 

## • 8 ro c n r t P - c n 3 O r t ro X 0 ro w c n P - < ro * 0 M > a o > r t O i 0 3
r t tr ro 3 O 3 1 0 ) < ro n O l 0 3 P 3 -i T l O P - 3 r t c n t r ro H ) O ri ro 0 o 3

- a P " P - 0 ) 3 O ro * * £ P - r t 3 * P 3 H

_> > 1 H I ar ro 0 0 3 T J M P - O i 3 O ro i Q M
. 0 c T l c n £ P - r t 3 * P 3 W *n > £ 0 1 3 rt
r t 3 * P - c n 3 P - 3 P - 3 D l t- 1 0 1 3 o c 3 r t P - 3 M ) 0 M
. 3 0 ) r t p O 3 O 3 r t 3 * ro 3 O 3 1 0 > < ro ri

y « n P 3 <Q T I O P - 3 r t c n t->

y f t ro

. • o D ) < ro n

y u q P 3 v Q 0 J 3 a li - ar ro c n d t r 3 P - r t r t 0 > t- 1 M > 0 M
. o r t c r ro ri T J 0 P - 3 r t c n ^ D) 3 a c n c t r 3 P - r t
r t t r ro o 

## 9
1 o 0 d M a £ ro c n ro T J O l n
y r t ro P 3 r t P 3 ro li - ar ro c n d t r 3 P - r t r t 0 ) t- 1 M ) O M
. ro 3 P - c n c n P O 3 c n . T l M 0 1 0 ro O l 3 Oa O T l ro ri 0 1 r t P 3 i Q t r ro M ) 0

. ro r t t r ro C J i

• < ro 0 1 ri o. y r t ro • M
• d > i
> c n 0 d r < O ro K O d M a 3 O it - er ro M
. ro
« H - ri ro a r t 0 t r 0 1 < ro r t 3 " ro o o 3 r t H o r-> C O H 3 U ) 1

• < ro o >

. o 0 3 T l M H - D > 3 O ro T J ro ri H 0 a • r t

. ^
r t O M ) 0 r< o ro r t t r ro C O r t 0 1 r t ro c n r t OOO c n O 3 ro r t cr H 3 v Q a H - M i M l ro ri ro 3 r f O * ro M ) o

. ro r t ar ro £ H - I- 1 M cr

. H 3 vQ
. 0 i c n o d M O ro H 3 f t o O 0 3 T l M H - 0 > 3 O ro

• * r t t r ro 3 w • d > o ri c n 0 3 ro 0 3 ro ro M cn ro 3 O l 0 0 3 O ro n 3 ro Oa
r t t r 0 ) r t p - M > M * d > 0 ) 3 Oa H 3 a d c n r t ri * < a H - c n D J i Q ^ ro ro o 3 K t r ro el - s ' ro

. D l T J M D» 3 M
. O M ro o M )
r t t r ro H 3 r a M ro 3 ro 3 r t D i r t H o 3 T J t->

y 3 ••0 H c n H - r t 0 ) O r t d o > H H

• < d c n ro a •• o s ro 0 1 ro o 

## s 1 a 3 f t H M
r t t r ro T J ro K 3 H - r t 0 ) T J T i M H - o D i r t H O 3 H - c n ro 3 M ) o ri O ro o > t r M ro ^ c t r y r t H - c n r t t r ro H - 3 T J t- 1 ro 3 ro 3 r t 0 ) r t H o 3 T J t-> 0 1 3 W t r o d M Oa t r ro p 3 O M d a ro a p 3 r t t r ro T J ro 

## y H - r t 0 ) T J T J M H - O D > r t p o 3 P - 3 T J M ro 3 ro 3 r t D i r t p o 3 T l M D l 3 • t c 0 K ro < ro ri

• y rt t r ro o o g 3 p - r t 3 ro 3 r t c n p 3
r t t r ro T l ro K 3 p - rt

y T f • a p > p 0 O l r t p O 3 P - c n rt V ro cr p 3 a p 3 i Q a o o d 3 ro 3 r t » 3 O r t
r t t r ro M » d > i o 3 O ro D l T J ro K 3 p - r t D i T J T J t-a t->- o
y r t p o 3 P - c n c n d t r 3 p - r t r t ro a

• » £ ro cr ro t-> p ro < ro r t V
y r t r t ro c n d cr c n d 3 ro a cr * < r t t r ro o o 3 T J r-> P - 0 1 3 O ro T J t- 1 0 1 3 -\i Oa O ro c n r t t r ro p 3 T l H ro 3 ro 3 r t 0 ) r t p 0 3 T J P " D > 3 O O 3 r t p 3 d ro r t 0 t r ro 3 ro D l 3 P - 3 <Q M ) d r- 1 0 ri P - cn p - r t r t t r
y rt
r t t r ro M ) 0 » o p M p - r t » < 3 d c n r t c n d cr 3 p - r t 0 1 T l ro H 3 p - f t D l T J T J M P O O l f t p 0 3 D l r t w o 3 o 3 r t c n D l 3 a r t tr ro 3 rt- a r ro T l ro

y P " r t 0 1 C rt - ar o

. p - r t » < v Q ro r t to D i T ) T J r < O < ro a p - 3
r t c r ro p ri c n r t D J r t ro » c n o o 

## g i H M> 0 1 M ) D J O P - M P - r t * < w d c r 3 p it - c n O l 3 P - 3 T J M ro 3 ro 3 r t 0 * r t p O 3 T J P > O l 3 D i r t t-a 0 0 3 O 3 r t t r c n M l O ri rt tf ro T f d i-( T J O W ro O M ) ro 3 M > O f- j o ro 3 ro 3 r t • r t t r ro w

• < ro D J

. o O 3 T J t-a p - D i 3 n ro a ro 0 1 a M

. P - 3 ro r t O
r i ro < p - ro £
r t tr ro p 3 T J H 1 ro 3 ro 3 r t D J r t p o 3 T J t- 1 D J 3 •
_ d n < f t tr ro p . 3 o ri ro

• • r t tr ro M 0 0 3 O 3 r t t r c n p - c n D ) o o 3 T S ri o 3 P - c n ro •
s ro 3 ro ro a r t p 3 ro t r ro M ) o M
. ro p - 3 O P " d a ro ro 3 o

y i Q t r a ro r t

y p - p " M ) o ri

y Ul rt O 3 D > X ro r t tr p - c n a ro r t ro ri 3 p - 3 0 J f t P o 3 • d 3 Oa ro M
. c n r t 0 J 3 Oa Vt rt tr ro M
. ro • Q d p - r < ro 3 ro 3 r t c n •

_ l t r ro p 3 P - f t P - 0 J P 1 3 o f t P - M i P o D i r t p O 3 Oa O ro c n 3 O li - f t a r ro p 3 T J P 1 ro 3 ro 3 f t

y rt p o 3 T f P 1 O l 3 c n O
r t tr 0 J r t £ ro o O J 3 t r ro c n d M
. ro li - a r D i r t O J M > 0 J o p - P " p - f t H * > 1 P l tr ro 3 O 3 1 ro 3 p - c n c n p O 3 c n D J < ro r f D i iQ
. p 3 v Q TJ - O P - 3 it - c n 3 ro ro a r t o cr ro p 3 o r- 1 c a ro a p 3P.1 5

application , coul d th e EPAexemp t a facilit ybecaus e it s Stat e ha s alread

yestablishe d a permi t program ? EP A - W e d o no t think tha t thi s chang e woul d achiev e th e goal s o f having an implementatio n pla n fo r planning purposes . Ther e migh t b e a long tim e perio d betwee n th e tim e tha t a Stat e permi t progra mauthorit yi s approve d an d th e permi t applicatio n i s submitted
. Th e implementatio n pla n need s t o b e i n place , approved , an

d enforceabl e b

yth e 3 yea r complianc e date , wheneve r n o permi t i s i n place
. Followin g thi s discussion , th e EPAan d CM Aconclude d tha t a n initia l notificatio n an d submitta l o f th e implementatio n pla n fo r emission s averagin g point s a t 1 8 month s mayb e workable
. Th e CM A als o expresse d a nee d t o discus s thi s furthe r wit h thei r members
. Th e CM Arepresentativ e conclude d tha t thei r concern s aris e fro m th e conten t an

d timing fo r a pla n involving non-averagin g points
. 8. 0 STORAG E

Ms . Mar yTomKissel l o f EPA' s SD B bega n th e discussio n abou t storag e b

yreviewin g an

d clarifyin g th e statu s o f th e item s liste d i n pag e 1 0 o f Attachmen t C . Th e discussio n wa s limite d t o unresolve d issues
. Referrin g t o Item5 , Ms . Kissel l sai d tha t th e EPAcoul d extend th e repai r perio d fo r control s beyond 7 2 hour s a s long a s ther e wer e n o workin g losse s during th e extende d period
. Thi s topi c prompte d th e following discussion
. CM A - W e believ e tha t a repai r perio d shoul d b e consisten t wit h th e tim e neede d t o repai r a n incinerato r o r flar e (Se e Attachmen t F fo r Storage , Poin t 3)
. W e checke d wit h th e peopl e a t on e plan t wh o indicate d tha t th e repair s woul d tak e on e week
. Thos e a t a secon

d plan t sai d repai r o f a flar e too k 12 0 hours
. W e sugges t tha t th e repai r perio d b e extende d t o 12 0 hours
. Furthermore , workin g losse s shoul d b e allowe d durin g thi s time
. W e ar e concerne d wit h th e restrictio n yo u mentio n o n tank leve l durin g repair
. A t some facilities , ther e ar e man ytank s tie d hon0792(ls ) 1 4P.1 6

int o a close d ven t system . I f a facilit ycanno t rais e th e liqui d leve l o f an

yo f thes e tanks , i t woul d hav e t o shu t dow n th e process . EPA- Th e 72-hou r limitatio n came fro mth e benzen e storag e regulation , but , give n thi s ne winformation , EP Acoul d reconside r thi s requirement
. W e wil l hav e a wor k grou p stud ythi s issu e t o develo p something equitable , considering th e 4 5 da yrepai r perio d currentl yallowe d fo r floating decks
. Regardin g safet yconcerns.expresse d b yCM A(Attachmen t C , Item6) , Ms . Kissel l sai d tha t afte r consulting wit h tank manufacturers , EPAconclude d tha t a facilit yshoul d kno wi n advanc e th e conditio n o f it s tank s an d b e abl e t o replac e a fault ytank befor e th e tim e come s fo r inspection
. Thi s prompte d th e following discussion
. CM A - Thi s inspectio n approac h originate s i n Subpar t K b o f 4 0 CF R Par t 6 0 (th

e NSP S fo r storag e o f volatil e organi c liquids)
. I n th e HON , w e ar e dealing wit h a muc h large r populatio n o f tank s tha n Kb
. Unde r th e HON , ther e i s a t leas t a lowprobabilit ytha t ther e wil l b e problem s wit h tank inspectio n safety
. EP A - T o hav e a safet yexemption , w e woul d nee d t o hav e som e provision s t o identif yobjectiv e criteri a fo r determinin g tha t th e tank i s unsaf e t o inspec t an d wha t alternativ e inspectio n coul d b e don e t o ensur e tha t tank emission s ar e no t excessive
. Perhap s w e coul d sa ytha t i f inspectio n i s unsaf e accordin g t o OSH Arequirements , w e woul d allo wa particula r lengt h perio d o f tim e fo r th e facilit yt o correc t th e safet yprobleman d inspect
. W e woul d lik e t o ad d tha t w e hav e 8 year s o f K b dat a o n storag e tank s an

d n o safet yproblem s hav e bee n reported
. 9. 0 WRAP-U P

I n wrappin g u

p th e meeting , th e CM Aan d th e EPAagree d t o wor k towar d resolving th e unresolve d storag e tank an d proces s ven t issue s b

yth e beginnin g o f Jul yan d th e unresolve d reporting hon0792(ls ) 1 5P.1 7

an d recordkeepin g issue s b yth e en

d o f July
. Fo r thi s purpose , join t CM

Aan d EP Aworkin g group s wer e established
. Th e CM Aan d th e EPAconclude d tha t th e majo r issue s o n whic h thei r opinion s diffe r ar e th e implementatio n pla n an d complianc e gridlock
. The y agree d tha t thes e tw o issue s woul d no t likel yb e resolve d befor e August . Afina l meetin g wa s arrange d fo r Augus t 5 , 1992
.

hon0792(ls ) 1 6P.1 8

ATTACHMEN

T AP.1 9

Meeting betwee n CM

Aan d EP A o n Draf t HON- 06/1 8 Tentativ e Agend a
11:0 0 Introductio n 11:1 5 Recordkeeping & Reportin g 12:1 5 Monitoring : Wha t distinguishe s a violatio n - wha t

differentiate s a n exceedanc e fro ma violation ? 12:4 5 Lunc h 1:3 0 Complianc e Gridloc k 2:1 5 Vent s 3:0 0 Transfe r 3:4 5 Implementatio n Pla n 4:1 5 Storag e 4:4 5 Wrap-u

pP.2 0

ATTACHMEN

T BCMA/EPAMEETIN G Jun e 18 , 199 2 Attendanc e Lis t P.2 1

Nam e Davi d Woodrin g Mar k Piersant e Kath yBaile y AmyMeyer s Gar yO'De a Annett e Stanle y Davi d Gustafso n Joh n Deg e Lind a Herrin g Bruc e Jorda n Mar yTo mKissel l Davi d Markword t Daphn e McMurre r Ja n Meye r Shiel a Millike n Debbi e Stackhous e Ki mBoudreau x Bria n Tarant o Chuc k Malloc h Denis e Bevingto n Valeri e Everett e Bennet t Kin g Rut h Mea d To mOlse n Ma e Thoma s Jo e Hoviou s Davi d Davi s Affiliatio n B P Chemical s Chevro n Chemica l Co .

CMA CMA CMA CMA Do wChemica l DuPon t EPA , ES D EPA , ES D EPA , ES D EPA , ES D EPA , ES D EPA , ES D EPA , ES D EPA , ES D Ethy l Corporatio n Exxo n Chemica l Monsant o Radia n Corporatio n Radia n Corporatio n Radia n Corporatio n Radia n Corporatio n Radia n Corporatio n Radia n Corporatio n Unio n Carbid e Vulca n Chemical s Telephon e Numbe r 216-586-867 0 510-842-588 0 202-887-118 6 202-887-137 0 202-887-135 3 202-887-110 3 517-636-295 3 302-773-422 9 919-541-535 8 919-541-557 2 919-541-451 6 919-541-083 7 919-541-024 8 919-541-535 4 919-541-2625 919-541-525 8 504-388-777 6 713-870-611 7 314-694-888 9 919-541-910 0 919-541-910 0 919-481-021 2 919-541-910 0 919-541-910 0 919-541-910 0 203-794-518 3 205-877-385 4ATTACHMEN T C

## SUMMAR Y O F CM

A COMMENTS/QUESTION S ON HO N

PROCES S VENT S - MajorIssue s

# 

## CMA Comments/Question s Remove requirementtha tTRE b e determined forall combination s of stream s in proces s unit ; revis e rul e to require TRE fo rindividua l vents only Remove requirementtha tTRE b e determined fo rvents thatar e alread y controlle d wit h the reference control technology (98 % efficiency o r2 0 ppmv) Includ e alowflowcutof

f to minimiz e burden of

monitoring , recordkeeping , and reportin g forsmall , low-emittin g ventstream s TR E shoul d b e initially calculate d based on "engineering assessment" . If TRE valu e is greate rthan "x" , testing no tnecessary t

o verif y TRE value . D = Decided W = Working o n ho wto incorporat e R= Researchin g N = D o notagree

## SUMMAR Y OF CM

A COMMENTS/QUESTION S ON HON PROCES S VENT S - Editoria l Issue s

# 

## 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CM A Comments/Questions Nee d clarificatio n of

wha tcondition s are required durin g aperformance test ; regulatio n currently read s under"maximum " conditions Regulation i s notclea rtha ta n actual measuremen

ti s required to determin e i f a halogenated ventstrea

m has 100 ppm

v Facto ron p . 367 shoul d b e 2.494E-0 6 TR E "b " constantforhalogenated streams should b e 1.417E-02 Change "performanc

e test " to "TR

E Determination Test " or"Grou p Determinatio n Test " Wordin g forbypas s line s has bee n submitted to clarif y requirements regardin g bypas s line s Requirementforrecalculatin g TRE needs to exclud e upsets orsmall unintentional operational change s D = Decide d W = Working on howto incorporat e R= Researchin g N = D o no tagrc t

## SUMMAR Y O F CM

A COMMENTS/QUESTION S O N HO N PROCES S VENT S - Compliance

# 

## 1 2 3 4

5 CM A Comments/Question s Wan tadefinition forintermittentvents and to exclud e them from rul e TR E monitorin g provisions nee d to b e clarified ; whatshoul d b e monitored if no recover

y device i s used ? Does no twan tto install a

n organi cmonitoring device ; want s to state that alternative/equivalentmonitoring devic e can b e approve d by permittin g authorit y Notclearwha

tequipmenti s notsubj'ec tto vents requirements ; propose d wordin g addressin g exceptio n of

lowle g drains , high pointbleeds , analyze rvents and equipment subjectto 63.16 7 Excessive burden associated wit h having to reportchange s and revise d TRE calculation s forproces s unitchanges when th e change doe s notchang e th e ventfrom Grou p 2 t o Group 1 D = Decided W = Working o n ho wto incorporat e R= Researchin g N = D o no tagre e

## SUMMARY O FCM ACOMMENTS/QUESTION S O NHO N

PROCES S VENT S - Miscellaneou s
tt CM A Comments/Questions Us e o f wor d"any " i nven t

definition s cause s confusio n Chang e compoun dconcentratio nbasi s t o haloge nan dhalid e concentratio nbasi s Curren t definitio nfor

batc hprocesse s exclude s man y processe s tha t ar e traditionall y considere dbatc hprocesse s Ar e analyze r

vent s covered ? D = Decide dW= Workin g o nho w t o incorporat e . R= Researchin g N= D o no t agre e

### SUMMAR Y O FCM ACOMMENTS/QUESTION S O NHO N TRANSFE ROPERATION S
ft 

### CM A Comments/Question s Dro p definitio no f

marin e vessel 2_ 3 Specif

y "annual " throughpu t

fo r Grou p 1 rack s Dro p languag e requirin g pressur e tes t certificatio nrecord s o ntan k car s an dtrailer s a t

loadin g site 4

_ 5 

### Dro p requiremen t

fo r pressur e tes t

certification ; ma

y duplicat e DO T regulatio n Recordin g temperatur e a t atw o minut e interva l durin g performanc e tes t an dmonitorin g cause s unnecessaril y larg e recordkeepin g burde n Wan t t o includ e us e of

vapo r balancin g a s a noptio n Wan t a noptio nt o usin g Metho d2 7 (vapo r tightness ) 8 Wan t

t o operat e vapo r

collectio nsystem s a t

apressur e les s tha nth e vapo r tightnes s tes t

pressur e Wan t t o us e dome collectio ndevic e 1 0 HO Nneed s details o nMetho d2 7 fro mBenzen e rul e 1 1 Wan t

rewrit e regardin g bypas s line s similar t o vent s rul e D = Decide dW= Workin g onho w t o incorporat e R= Researchin g N= D o not agre e

### SUMMAR Y O FCM ACOMMENTS/QUESTION S O NHO N

WASTEWATE R


## tt CM A Comments/Question s Landfil l leachat e shoul dno t b e regulate di nHO N Whic hlandfill s wil l b e regulate dan dwil l 100 % o f th e leachat e b e subject ? " V « Whe nfacilitie s discharg e wastewate r t o POTW , th e HO Nshoul dno t regulat e pas t

th e \ outfall

. Wan t poin t o f generatio nmove dt o junctio nbo x (Firs t air/wate r

interface )

« « Tj *_L_ P _L * __I_L__ I *I*_L_ L 1 * 

### Wan t poin t o f generatio nmove dt o facilitat e samplin g m

_ 

### Co-minglin g suppresse s HA Pemission s an dshoul djustif y mixin g stream s an dless/n o contro l fo r

lowe r concentratio nstream s D = Decide dW= Workin g o nho w t o incorporat e R= Researchin g N= D o no t agre e

ro 0 0

### SUMMAR Y O FCM ACOMMENTS/QUESTION S O NHO N WASTEWATER(continued ) CM A Comments/Question s M25 D —several issue s here :

• Not goo dmetho dmechanicall y speaking
• Plan t peopl e no t

use dt o usin g
• Measur e potential emissions ; no t actua l —wan t actua l
• Metho dto o aggressiv e —measure s compound s tha t wil l no t volatiliz e fro mwastewate r o r tha t canb e strippe dout 8 Regulatory tex t

no t clear Indirec t contac t stream s suc ha s runoffs , safet y showers , etc. , shoul db e exempte dfro mth e HON ; inclusio nincrease s R& Rburde nan dlega l liability fo r

very littl e retur ninreduce demissions

. CMAprefer s OCPS Fdefinitio nof wastewater
. 1 0 Same a s comment

9 , bu t refer s t o indirec t

contac t stream s fro mhea t

exchanges , etc
. D - Decide dW= Workin g onhow t o incorporat e R= Researchin g N= D o no t agre e
* Interi mdraft s before September

.

r o

## SUMMAR Y O F CM

A COMMENTS/QUESTION S O N HO N WASTEWATER(continued )
It 

## CMA Comments/Questions 1 1 Ranges in Strippabilit y Group s A- E are to o broa d —HON shoul d regulate usin g each compound' s actual strippability . 1 2 

## Wil l bio-units b e feasibl e optio n unde rHON and ho wwill itall work ? 1 3
1 4 

## Need to chang e text—currently , th e rule fornotification does no twor kfor continuou s discharge , e.g. , discharge int o aPOTW . EP A doesn' trespond to CM A submittal s suc

h as aCH2

M Hill study . 1 5 Should nothave to treatStrippabilit y Grou p E residuals . D = Decided W = Working on howto incorporat e R= Researchin g N = Do no tagre e

## SUMMAR Y O FCM ACOMMENTS/QUESTION S O NHON WASTEWATE

R(continued) CM A Comments/Question

s 1 6 Residua l treatmen t

option s ar e to o limiting ; shoul dallo w sale

. 1 7 

## Emission estimate s and cos testimate s are incorrect . 1 8 Where did 1 ppb limitfo rwastewate rdefinition com e fro m —itshoul d b e taken ou to f HON . 1 9 Emission averagin g equations need wor k 2 0 

## Wastewate rstream s fro m batch processe s shoul d b e exempted becaus e of th e difficult

y of determining concentratio n and flowrat e and demonstratin g performance . 2 1 

## Want

s u s to provid e vapo rpressure cutoff s forfixed roo

f wastewate rstorag e tanks 2 2 

## Should only b e require d to contro l forstrippabilit y Group A ; definitely shoul d no thave to control forstrippabilit y Group E D = Decide d W = Working on howto incorporate R= Researchin g N = D o no tagre e

T l C O

### SUMMAR Y OF CM

A COMMENTS/QUESTIONS O N HO N STORAG E VESSEL S CM A Comments/Questions Wan tstandar d atfloor(1. 9 psia) ; 0.7 5 psia(NSPS ) o rhigher Vaporpressur

e cutof f cannotb e measured below0. 2 psiausing methods i n AP I Bulleti n 251 7 (Rei

d vaporpressure) 3 3 

### _3

_ 

### 4 

### Allowdela

y of repairas done i

n Subpar tH I s ductwor

kcovered i

n Subpar tH o rGen . Pr

o v. ? 72 hours repairperiod forcontrol s i s to o shor t Requiremen

tfo rsea l inspection gap measurement s pose s riskto worker

s becaus e externa

l floating roo

f ma y notbe structurally sound Concer n overexplosion an

d confined space safet

y issues i n tan kinspections 8 Include provisions forinspections o f interna l floating roof

s already i

n service a

tHON compliance dat

e Does maximu

m true vaporpressure mea n the vaporpressur

e o f the liquid o rth e HAP' s i n the liquid ? D = Decided W = Working on ho wto incorporat

e R= Researching N = Do notagree

1 0

c o r o

## SUMMARY O FCM ACOMMENTS/QUESTION S O NHO N EMISSION S AVERAGIN G

tt 

## CMA Comments/Question s Shoul dEPAallo w credi t

fo r control s pu t

i nplac e befor e HO Npromulgation ? Ho w fa r bac k i ntime ? Shoul dth e 33/5 0 progra mb e credited ? 2 3 

## Shoul dEP A chang e th e complianc e perio dt o Annua l (s o tha t th e us e of

"Actual " emission s estimate s i s mor e workable) ? How lon g woul dapotential perio do f non-complianc e b e wit

hannua l averaging ? o r quarterl y averaging ? Ho w man y point s woul db e subjec t t o enforcemen t

action s i f a naverag e doe s no t

balance ? Shoul dEPAgiv e a3 % credi t i f atan k i s controlle dwit

haclose dven t

syste mtha t

ha s a 98 % combustio ndevice ?
7 

## Ho w shoul dvapo r

balancin g b e handle dfo r averaging ? Shoul dimprove doperatio nof arecovery devic e b e credited ? D = Decide dW= Workin g o nho w t o incorporat e R= Researchin g N= D o no t agre e

n

T l C O

## SUMMARY O FCM ACOMMENTS/QUESTION S O NHO N

IMPLEMENTATIO NPLAN
tt 

## CM A Comments/Question s Ho w detaile dshoul dth e initial notificatio nplanbe ? Shoul dth e initia l notificatio no r a late r submitta l b e th e implementatio nplan ? 

# i Ca nth e permi t

applicatio nsubstitut e for th e detaile dimplementatio nplan ? 3

_ 4 

## Whe nshoul dathoroug himplementatio nplanb e due ? Whe nshoul dth e implementatio npla nbecome enforceable ? D = Decide dW= Workin g o nho w t o incorporat e R= Researchin g N= D o no t agre e

1 2

c o

## SUMMARY O FCM ACOMMENTS/QUESTION S O NHO N

MONITORING , RECORDS , & REPORT S
tt CM A Comments/Question s Shoul dexceedanc e report s b e du e les s frequentl y tha nevery quarter ? Shoul dasourc e hav e mor e tha n4 5 day s t o repor t performanc e tes t

result s an d complianc e monitorin g results ? Shoul dperiodi c reportin g requirement s b e replace dwithreport s o ndemand ? Ho w ca nth e M , R& Rburde nb e reduce dwithou t sacrificin g enforceability ? D = Decide dW= Workin g o nho w t o incorporat e R= Researchin g N= D o no t agre e

1 3P.3 6

ATTACHMEN

T DP.3 7

EPA/CM AMeetin g o f Jun e 18
. 199 2

A s par t o f investigating th e reporting an d recordkeepin g burden , th e EP

Ai s seeking inpu t o n th e report s an d record s tha t source s mayb e alread ydoing a s par t o f interna l safety , quality , preventiv e maintenance , o r othe r programs . Th e question s liste d belo war e mean t t o b e a n indicatio n o f th e kind o f informatio n w e ar e intereste d in
. Pleas e fee l fre e t o provid e an

yinformatio n yo u fee l woul d b e helpful
. Ouestion s
1
. Ar e interna l safety , quality , an d preventiv e maintenanc e program s commo n t o mos t o f you r company' s SOCM I facilities ?
I s on e typ e o f progra msignificantl ymor e commo n tha n th e others ? I s on e progra m presen t a t 100 % o f you r company' s SOCM I facilities ?
2
. Ar e ther e othe r type s o f existing record s an d reports ? Wha t ar e thes e othe r type s o f record s an d reports ? Ar e the y commo n t o mos t o f you r company' s SOCM I facilities ?
3
. Wha t kin

d o f record s an

d report s ar e availabl e t o prov e th e effectivenes s o f pollutio n contro l equipmen t (e.g. , incinerator , condenser , interna l floating roof , etc.) ?

Ar e an yparameter s monitore d a s indicator s o f saf e operatio n o r t o ensur e tha t pollutio n contro l equipmen t i s properl ymaintained ?

Ar e ther e an

yroutin e inspection s o r maintenanc e actions ? B

yth e source ? B

yth e pollutio n contro l equipmen t vendor ?P.3 8

ATTACHMEN

T EP.3 9

REPORTIN

G & RECORDKEEPIN

G IDEA S

I . Annua l Complianc e Certificatio n Svstem s
1
. Demonstratio n o f interna l accountability
.

sourc e prepare s verydetaile d plan/procedure s identifyin g employe e responsibilities
. plan/procedure s uniqu e t o eac h source . initia l demonstratio n required , e.g. , audi t o f pla n an d procedures
. n o mandatoryperiodi c record s o r report s unles s specifie d i n plan
. annua l complianc e certificatio n (specific s t o b e defined ) an

d spo t inspection s ensur e continue d compliance
. 2
. Industryself-policin g

base d o n militaryhardwar e acquisitio n system

. - simila r t o ide a # 1 (interna l accountability ) additiona l requiremen t o f independentl yoperatin g contracto r enforcemen t grou p - serve s a s EPA enforcemen t surrogat e EPAenforcemen t ask s contracto r enforcemen t group s t o certif yan

d b e abl e t o prove/demonstrat e complianc e penalt yfo r deficien t contracto r enforcemen t grou p woul d b e sever e (e.g. , proces s uni t o r sourc e shutdown )
3
. Annua l performanc e testin g an d inspection s
annua l performanc e test s base d o n routin e operatin g condition s a s evidence d b yrecord s
n o periodi c report s require dP.4 0

II . Incentiv e Svstem Applicabl e t o exceedanc e report s and/o r performanc e tes t reports . th e following parameter s coul d b e varie d a s par t o f an incentiv e system : frequenc yo f report s
amoun t o f dat a include d i n repor t
+ e*g. , fo r a n exceedanc e report , th e detai l leve l coul d rang e fro m1 ) acknowledgin g a n exceedanc e occurre d t o 2 ) providin g a detaile d accounting o f wh yi t occurred , wha t correctiv e actio n wa s taken , an d calculation s estimating th e emission s
+ e.g. , fo r performanc e tes t reports , th e detai l leve l coul d rang e from 1 ) acknowledgin g th e tes t wa s complete d successfull yt o 2 ) including detail s abou t th e tes t an

d th e result s
+ e.g. , fo r verybad performers , coul d requir e sourc e t o hard-wir e thei r electroni c monitorin g device s t o th e enforcemen t offic e automati c fine s afte r a predetermine d numbe r o f exceedance s o r faile d performanc e test s automati c repea t o f performanc e tes t afte r a predetermine d numbe r o f exceedance s possibl e starting point s fo r a n incentiv e system.. . star t lenien t an

d ge t mor e stringen t i f source' s performanc e deteriorate s star t stringen t an

d ge t lenien t a s sourc e demonstrate s goo d performanc e star t i n th e middl eP.4 1

III . Alternativ e Complianc e Option s a s Approve d b yth e Permi t Revie wAuthorit yo r Administrato r
Sourc e could ;

identif ymonitorin g parameter s an d inspectio n regime n base d o n existing record s an d report s relate d t o quality , safety , an d preventativ e maintenanc e programs . submi t themt o permi t authorit yfo r approva l a s a n alternativ e wayt o compl ywit h HONmonitoring , recordkeeping , an

d reportin g requirements
. woul d requir e EPAt o gai n understandin g o f quality , safety , an

d preventativ e maintenanc e program s woul d requir e preparatio n o f supplementa l material s t o ai d i n case-by-cas e evaluatio n
IV . Paramete r Monitorin g an d Inspectio n System s (HO NApproach ) Liste d belo war e refinement s t o th e existin g approach
. 1
. Develo p tiere d requirement s fo r Grou p 2 emissio n points
. distinguis h betwee n thos e Grou p 2 point s tha t ar e trul y insignifican t an

d thos e tha t coul d becom e Grou p 1 develo p appropriat e requirement s fo r eac h subgrou p
2
. Simplif yinitia l notificatio n an d mak e a separat e implementatio n pla n du e a t a late r dat a i f necessary . 3
. Allo wmor e tim e fo r repor t preparation
. 4
. Allo wmor e tim e betwee n reports .ATTACHMEN T F

# t'

- \

CHEMICA L MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATIO N
CM AActio n Items an

d CM Aresponse s Implementatio n Plan 1
. CM Awil l draf t languag e o n th e revise d complianc e pla n section , including th e notification , permi t application , & alternativ e submittal
.
IMPLEMENTATIO

NPLAN S Th e propose d HO

Nwoul d requir e each sourc e subjec t t o the standard t o submi t an "implementatio n plan " t o the permitting authorit ywithi n 12 0 day s o f promulgation
. Th e plan i s supposed t o identify , i n grea t detail , th e emissio n point s subjec t t o th e rul e an d ho wth e sourc e wil l ge t each subjec t poin t int o compliance
. CM Amaintain s tha t i t i s bot h unnecessar

yan d essentiall yimpossibl e t o prepar e a pla n wit h th e detai l require d i n th e proposa l i n th e tim e allowed
. W e believ e tha t enforceabilit yo f the MAC T standard i s no t a sufficien t basi s fo r the implementatio n pla n propose d i n the draf t HON . Source s subjec t t o an yMAC T standard hav e tw o statutor

yobligation s - t o compl ywit h th e standard b yth e complianc e dat e an d t o obtai n an operating permit
. Th e operating permi t applicatio n wil l includ e th e same informatio n propose d a s par t o f a n implementatio n pla n - identificatio n o f emissio n points , complianc e methods , recordkeeping , reporting , an

d monitoring requirements
. The timeline s lai d ou t in the statut e mak e clea r tha t operating permi t program s shoul d b e i n plac e prio r t o the HO Ncomplianc e date
. Eve n i f the operating permit s wer e delayed , th e MAC T standar d i s directl yenforceabl e agains t the sourc e afte r the complianc e deadline
. The initia l implementatio n plan shoul d b e replace d wit h simplifie d notificatio n requirements
. Thi s simplifie d initia l notificatio n woul d includ e a descriptio n o f the sourc e an d th e chemica l manufacturing unit s tha t the sourc e ha s determine d ar e subjec t t o the standard
. W e believ e tha t such a requiremen t i s sufficien t t o notif y the appropriat e authorit ytha t a subjec t sourc e exists , an d serve s t o trigge r th e complianc e planning proces s withi n the source . In th e unlikel yeven t tha t th e HO Nbecome s enforceabl e befor e a n operating permi t applicatio n i s due , CM Asuggest s tha t a sourc e b e require d t o submi t th e equivalen t o f a complianc e pla n si x month s prio r t o the complianc e da"te vTh_s~-~wanld : ensure : thai:
. th£_regnlator y authorit yha s detaile d informatio n abou t th e sourc e an

d the intende d metho d o f complianc e befor e th e standard become s enforceable
. Thi s approac h woul d als o relieve source s o f the excessive burde n o f hastil y compilin

g a plan tha t wil l duplicat e thei r permi t application
.

250 1 M Street

. NW

. Washington

. D C 2003 7 202-887-1100 ' Panata x202-887-123 7 Telex8961 7 (CM AWSH )P.4 4

§63.15 1 Initia l Notificatio n an d Complianc e Pla n (a ) Eac h owne r o r operato r o f a sourc e subjec t t o Subpar t G tha t ha s a n initia l startu p prio r t o th e effectiv e dat e shal l notif yth e Administrato r i n writin g tha t th e sourc e i s subjec t t o th e Subpart
. Th e notificatio n shal l b e submitte d withi n 12 0 day s afte r th e effectiv e dat e o f Subpar t G and shal l includ e th e followin g information :

(1 ) Th e nam e an d addres s o f th e owner/operator ; (2 ) Th e addres s (physica l location ) o f th e affecte d
source ; (3 ) A n identificatio n o f th e standard s include d i n Subpar t G tha t ar e th e basi s o f th e notification ;

(4 ) Abrie f descriptio n o f th e nature , size , an d operatio n o f th e source ;

(5 ) A n identificatio n o f th e proces s unit s subjec t t o Subpar t G . (b ) Eac h owne r o r operato r o f a sourc e subjec t t o Subpar t G tha t ha s no t submitte d a Titl e V operatin g permi t applicatio n
a t leas t si x month s prio r t o th e complianc e date s specifie d i n §63.100(f ) o f Subpar t F shal l develo p a complianc e plan
. Th e complianc e pla n shal l b e submitte d n o late r tha n si x month s prio r t o th e complianc e date s specifie d i n §63.100(f ) o f Subpar t F .P.4 5

Recordkeepin g an d Reportin g 1 . CM A wil l ge t feedbac k o n th e "record s a s necessary " ide a fro m membe r companies , identif y positive s an

dnegatives , an

dloo k a t th e risk s o f havin g one wee k t o gathe r al l records . Overall , CMAmember s responde d ver ypositivel yt o possibilit yo f eliminatin g periodi c reportin g an d makin g record s availabl e a s

• requested
. However , ther e ar e detail s tha t nee d t o b e addresse d whe n tryin g t o develo p thi s concep t int o a workabl e approach
. Th e timin g an d scop e o f th e reques t fo r record s shoul d studied
. Informatio n coul d b e availabl e withi n on e wee k fo r tim e period s on e mont h o r mor e prio r t o th e request . Fo r informatio n o n dat a withi n on e month , i t coul d tak e u p t o on e mont h fromth e las t dat e o f th e dat a reques t du e t o difficultie s i n obtainin g informatio n t o provid e tim e t o compil e recen t record s and transfe r the mt o a centra l accessibl e location
. 2 . CM A wil l stud

y th e char t onR& RSubpart s F & G
CM Awil l revie wimpres s ions-to-dat e a t th e 6/1 8 mtg . 3 . CM A wil l sugges t alternativ e time s fo r th e existin g 3 0 da y lag time fo r reportin g an

dth e 12 0 day

perio dt o d o a revise dtest . CM Asuggest s a 9 0 da yla g tim e fo r reportin g afte r th e en d o f th e complianc e period
. Presently , i t take s CM Amember s 4 5 t o 6 0 day s t o ge t th e informatio n froma contracto r and compil e i t int o a forma l report . Wit h th e increase d burde n associate d wit h MAC T an d othe r stat e an d federa l regulations , turnaroun d tim e i s expecte d t o increas e t o 9 0 days
. CMArecommend s a provisio n allowin g case-by-cas e extension s t o th e require d 12 0 da yperio d fo r performin g a revise d test . 4 . CM A wil l conside r an dpresen t alternative s t o EPA' s propose dR& R requirements . CMAwil l presen t suggestion s durin g th e discussio n o n 6/18
.Proces s Vent s 1

. CM Apresente dascenari o whereb y asourc e woul dd o a nengineerin g calculatio nt o d o afirs t TRE

. I f

th e TR Ewa s muchgreate r

tha none , th e calculatio nwoul db e sufficient

. I Fth e TR Ewa s clos e t o one , th e sourc e woul dd o a nactua l tes t an drecalculat e th e TRE

. CM Aagree dt o provid e mor e languag e o nthi s approach

.
TR ECALCULATION

S EP Apropose s i n§63.11 5 tha t th e owne r

o r operato r

conduc t

ates t o n eac hven t

subjec t

t o Subpar t

G

. CM Abelieve s tha t

th e rul e shoul d allo w asourc e t o us e bes t engineerin g calculation s whe nmakin g a n initia l TR

Eevaluation

. I f

th e engineerin g calculation s sho w TR Eles s tha naspecifie dvalue , the nth e owne r o r operato r

woul db e require dt o conduc t testin g t o verif y th e estimates

. CM Abelieve s thi s approac hwoul densur e tha t al l vent s whic har e clos e t o th e contro l threshol dwoul db e subjec t t o actua l testing

. Th e suggeste dapproac hwoul dals o reliev e source s o f conductin g expensiv e testin g o nvent s tha t clearl y hav e aTR

Egreate r

tha none . I f aven t clearl y ha s aTR

Eles s tha none , CM Abelieve s tha t

th e sourc e shoul dhav e th e optio nt o declare , base do nengineerin g knowledge , tha t

th e ven t

ha s aTR

Eunde r on e an di s subjec t t o th e Subpar t Gcontro l requirements

. Thi s woul dalleviat e th e nee dfo r expensiv e testin g o nvent s tha t obviousl y mus t

b e controlled , an dwil l brin g th e ven t

unde r Subpar t

Gcoverage . 

### §63.11 5 Proces s Ven t Provision s - tes t

method s an dprocedure s fo r TR Einde x valu e determinations

. (a ) TR Einde x valu e determination s fo r eac hven t

subjec t

t o Subpar t Gshal l b e determine dusin g th e method s specifie di n part s (b ) an d(c ) o f thi s section , o r

b y usin g bes t

engineerin g estimates

. (1 ) Asourc e tha t

utilize s engineerin g estimate s t o determin e TR

Einde x value s shal l conduc t ates t a s specifie di n part s (b ) an d(c ) o f thi s sectio ni f

th e initia l engineerin g calculatio nindicate s tha t th e ven t

ha s TR Einde x valu e greate r tha n1. 0 an dles s tha n[ aspecifie dvalue]

. (2 ) Asourc e ma

y compl y wit hthi s sectio nvit hn o g 

### --^ — 7 mord-feerln g b y declarin g tha t bes t engineerin g knowledg e show s tha t aven t subjec t

t o Subpar t

Gha s aTR

Einde x valu e les s tha none . * * * * Note : thi s languag e i s intende dt o b e inserte dane w par t (a)

. Subsequen t

part s woul db e relettere daccordingly

.P.4 7

1. 5 CM A shoul dprovide anappropriat e TR E Grou p2 cutof f valu e fo r testing , along wit hsupportin g documentation .

CM Ai s currentl yworkin g o n a statistica l analysi s o f th e sampl e vent s provide d i n th e BI D t o identif ya n appropriat e number , howeve r CMAneed s additional , informatio n o n strea m characteristic s o f th e BI D vents , suc h a s whethe r o r no t the y ar e halogenated,i n orde r t o defin e a n accurat e cutof f point
. 2 . CM A wil l revie

w th e proces s vent s sectio nan dcorrelate i t wit hth e revise ddefinitio no f proces s vent s a s discusse di nth e definition s section . CM

Ai s satisfie d tha t th e revise d definitio n o f proces s vents , a s develope d i n th e Apri l 1 4 meetin g betwee n CM Aand EPA , wil l integrat e int o th e proces s vent s sectio n withou t obstruction.Th e definitio n read s a s follows :
Proces s Vent mean s a ga s strea mtha t i s continuousl y discharge d fro ma n ai r oxidatio n proces s unit , reacto r proces s unit , o r distillatio n operatio n withi n a chemica l manufacturin g proces s tha t meet s al l applicabilit ycriteri a i n Sectio n 63.10 0 o f thi s Subpar t an d Sectio n 63.11 0 o f Subpar t G . Proces s vent s includ e ga s stream s tha t ar e continuousl ydischarge d directl yt o th e atmosphere
. Proces s vent s exclud e relie f valv e discharge s an d leak s fromequipmen t regulate d unde r Subpar t H o f thi s Par t bu t includ e vent s fro mproduc t accumulato r vessels
. 3 . CM A need s t o provide informatio no nR& Rfo r Grou p2 TREs . CM Awil l provid e thi s informatio n i n th e future
. 4 . CM A need s t o provide a procedur e fo r movin g fro m Grou p2 t o Grou p 1 . CM Awil l presen t suggestion s durin g th e discussio n o n 6/18
. 5 . CM A need s t o provid e example s o f alternative s t o organi c monitor s fo r group2 vents , a s propose db y CM A durin g th e 4/1 4 meeting . CM Aha s alread yprovide d languag e addressin g allowin g alternative s t o organi c monitors , and wil l presen t example s durin g th e discussio n o n 6/18
. 6 . CM A need s t o provide informatio no n switchin g t o a Cl , Br , Fl , concentratio nmeasuremen t fo r halogenate dvents , rathe r tha na compoun d concentratio nmeasurement .

CM Awil l provid e informatio n durin g th e meetin g o n 6/18
.Intermitten t Vent s CM Abelieve s tha t th e clarifyin g th e definitio n o f proces s ven t durin g th e Apri l 1 4 meetin g remove d th e nee d fo r a definitio n o f "intermitten t vent" . Th e definitio n read s a s follows :

Proces s Ven t mean s a ga s strea mtha t i s continuousl y discharge d fro ma n ai r oxidatio n proces s unit , reacto r proces s unit , o r distillatio n operatio n withi n a chemica l manufacturin g proces s tha t meet s al l applicabilit ycriteri a i n Sectio n 63.10 0 o f thi s Subpar t and Sectio n 63.11 0 o f Subpar t G . Proces s vent s includ e ga s stream s tha t ar e continuousl ydischarge d directl yt o th e atmosphere
. Proces s vent s exclud e relie f valv e discharge s an d leak s fromequipmen t regulate d unde r Subpar t H o f thi s Par t bu t includ e vent s fromproduc t accumulato r vessels
.P.4 9

Transfe r 1. 0 CM A wil l continu e t o wor k o nmeshin g the existin g DO T regulation s wit hth e HON - EPA i s concerne dtha t they ar e no t applicable . CM Awil l follow-up o n specific s o f th e DO T regulation s fo r discussio n o n 6/18
. 2. 0 CM A need s t o look a t alternative s t o Metho d27 - EP A i s presentl y considerin g Metho d21 .

CM Arequest s EP At o describ e thei r concern s an d ho wthe y migh t b e addresse d b yMetho d 21
. 3. 0 CM A need s t o decid e whethe r vapo r balancin g shoul dbe an exemption , o r analternativ e whic hwoul dprovid e credi t unde r emission s averaging . EP A

i s presentl y

considerin g bot hoptions , o r a combination . I f i t i s use s a s a credi t generator , ho w woul di t be monitored ?
CM

Asupport s vapo r balancin g a s eithe r a n exemptio n o r a credi t generatin g alternative
. I f a sourc e select s th e credi t generatin g alternative , a monitorin g schem e shoul d b e develope d wit h th e loca l permittin g authority
. 4. 0 CM A need s t o explai nan djustif y

a "dome device" . CM Abelieve s tha t "close d dom e loading " i s a formo f vapo r balancing
. Th e ter mi s als o use d t o describ e th e recover yo f vapor s fromloadin g operation s fo r treatmen t o r recycle
. 5. 0 CM A need s t o provid e anappropriat e time a s a replacemen t fo r th e existin g two minut e R& Rrequiremen t i nth e existin g draft .

CM Asuggest s tha t a 1 5 minut e tim e interva l i s appropriat e fo r transfe r period s o f les s tha n thre e hours
. A t leas t on e recor d coul d b e require d fo r period s les s tha n 1 5 minutes
. 6. 0 CM A need s t o addres s EPA' s concern s abou t vapo r pressure s greate r tha nth e allowe dloading pressure ?

CM Aneed s mor e informatio n o n EPA' s concern s an d wil l hopefull yb e abl e t o addres s the ma t th e meeting
. Presently , CM Abelieve s tha t thi s issu e ma yb e a n artifac t o f Metho d 27
. Metho d 2 7 specifie s a maximu mloadin g pressur e fo r gasolin e loading
.P.5 0

Storag e 1 . CM A wil l develo palternativ e languag e an dalternativ e inspection procedure s t o addres s the safet y concern s o f inspectio no f floatin g roo f tanks . EPAha s propose d tha t eac h storag e vesse l equippe d wit h a floatin g roo f mus t b e visuall yinspecte d a t variou s intervals
. I n orde r t o inspec t th e floatin g roof , i t appear s tha t personne l mus t actuall y acces s th e roof
. Thi s ca n creat e a seriou s safet yhazard
. Source s complyin g wit h th e HONmus t b e awar e tha t a potentia l hazar d exists , an d tha t the ymus t tak e adequat e safet yprecaution s whe n conductin g th e inspections
. Thi s include s complyin g wit h existin g OSHAregulation s [Walkin g an d Workin g Surface s - - 2 9 CF R §1910 , subpar t D , propose d revisio n a t 5 5 Fed
. Reg . 1336 0 (Apri l 10 , 1990 ) an d Confine d Spac e Entr y- - propose d a t 5 4 Fed
. Reg . 2408 0 (Jun e 5 , 1989)]
. CM Ai s als o concerne d tha t unles s provision s simila r t o th e equipmen t leak s sectio n - - 'unsaf e t o monito r valves " - - ar e include d i n th e storag e vesse l section, personne l ma yb e injure d attemptin g t o conduc t th e require d inspection
. Owner s o r operator s mus t b e give n th e latitud e t o determin e whe n a potentia l hazar d exist s an d t o b e exempte d fromconductin g th e inspection
. §63.12 0 Storag e vesse l provision s - procedure s t o determin e compliance . (a ) Prio r t o inspectin g a floatin g roo f tank , th e owne r
or operato r shal l ensur e tha t safet y precaution s ar e take nb y personne l accessin g th e floatin g roofs , includin g complying wit hal l pertinen t OSHA regulations . (b ) A floatin g roo f tan k i s exemp t fro m th e inspectio n requirement s o f paragraph s (c ) throug h(e ) o f thi s sectio nif :

(i ) Th e owne r o r operato r determine s tha t a floating roo f tank i s unsaf e t o inspec t becaus e personne l woul d b e exposedt o a potentia l hazar da s a resul t o f complyin g wit h paragraph s (c ) throug h(e ) o f thi s section ; and

(ii ) Th e owne r o r operato r documents - th e potentia l hazard . (Inser t a s ne

w § 63.120(a ) & (b) . Renumbe r sectio n accordingly. )P.5 1

2
. CM Awil l nee d t o provid e alternative s t o roofto p inspectio n o f externa l floater s i f ther e reall yi s a safet yconcern .

CM Arealize s tha t roofto p inspection s ar e generall y acceptable
. However , ther e ar e circumstance s wher e a roofto p inspectio n i s no t saf e an d a a safet yexemptio n shoul d b e readil yavailable
. 3
. CMAwil l sugges t a mor e appropriat e tim e fo r a repai r perio d tha t th e 7 2 hour s state d i n th e draft HON .

CMAsuggest s a repai r perio d fo r close d system s tha t i s consisten t wit h th e tim e neede d t o repai r a n incinerato r o r flare
. CMAi s concerne d tha t norma l operation s wil l b e severel y limite d i f a sourc e canno t rais e th e leve l i n a storag e tank fo r severa l week s durin g th e repai r period
. Th e on e tim e 3 0 da yextensio n presentl yallowe d i n th e draf t regulatio n shoul d b e negotiabl e wit h th e permittin g authority
. 4
. CMAwil l loo k at word s t o clarif yth e credi t issu e fo r storag e tanks
. Th e Subpar t G definitio n o f Referenc e Contro l Technolog yfo r storag e tank s state s tha t fo r th e purpose s o f emission s averaging , close d ven t system s ar e assume d t o hav e th e equivalen t contro l efficienc ya s interna l an d externa l floatin g roofs
. A95 % contro l leve l i s th e assume d efficienc yfo r thes e technologies
. CMA believe s th e definitio n shoul d mak e clea r tha t th e contro l achieve d bya close d ven t syste mi n exces s o f 95 % i s creditabl e fo r emission s averaging
. Close d ven t system s (t o a contro l device ) clearl yar e capabl e o f achievin g greate r tha n 95 % contro l efficiency
. Thi s highe r leve l o f emissio n contro l i s on e o f a ver yfe warea s wher e credit s ma y b e availabl e fo r emission s averaging
. Th e propose d chang e t o th e definitio n woul d allo wsource s wit h a close d ven t syste mt o us e th e exces s emissio n contro l a s a n emission s averagin g credit
. §63.1 1 Definition s Referenc e contro l technolog yfo r storag e vessel s mean s a n interna l floatin g roo f meetin g th e specification s o f §63.119(b ) o f thi s Subpart , a n externa l floatin g roo f meetin g th e specification s o f §63.119(c ) o f thi s Subpart , o r a close d ven t syste mt o a contro l devic e meeting-the-spRr.ificatJLoj_3...of-l63..-119C_>Lof r this.
. Subpart
. Fo r purpose s o f emission s averaging , th e emissio n contro l i n exces s o f 95 % reductio n o f organi c HA P emission s obtaine d i n a close d ven t syste mi s availabl e a s a n emission s averagin g credit
.P.5 2

Emission s Averagin g 1 . CM A wil l tr

y t o identif y

th e scop e o f credit s availabl e due t o the post-promulgatio nconditio ni nth e existin g language . CM A wil l als o look a t th e amoun t o f credit s available unde r the 33/5 0 program .

CM Amembe r companie s ha d a ver ydifficul t tim e addressin g thi s reques t fo r informatio n becaus e interna l estimate s ar e no t sufficientl ydevelope d a t thi s tim e t o allo w environmenta l professional s t o estimat e th e availabl e credits
. 3 . CM A wil l discus s ho

w stat e requirement s ar e t o b e credite dunde r emission s averaging .

CM Awil l discus s thi s durin g th e 6/1 8 meeting
.P.5 3

ATTACHMEN

T GP.5 4

HO N REPORTING-CONCEPTUA L OUTLINE DRAF T 6/16/9 2
PURPOSE :

DRAF T HON : Reduc e th e reportin g requirement s i n th e draf t HO N

MAC T standard s b

yincorporatin g a concep t o f "exceptio n reporting"
. Proces s vents

- 1
. Initia l report s wit h implementatio n pla n o r a t change
. 2
. Performanc e tests . 3
. TR E calculation s (various)
. 4
. Exceedances

- grou p 1 an d2 unde r TR E o f 8 o r qtly
. Storag e tanks

- 1
. Initia l report s wit h implementatio n pla n o r a t effectiv e date . 2
. Exceedances

- qtly
. Transfer - 1
. Performanc e tests .

NE W CONCEPTS : Wastewater 2 . Exceedances - qtly . 1 . Initia l repor t withi n9 0 day s o r wit himplementatio nplan . 2 . Exceedance s generall y qtly . Minimiz e recordkeepin g (separat e issue ) andmov e t o a standardize dsemiannua l reportin g o f onl y a tabulatio n o f exceedances/deviations . Th e permi t regulation s an d progra m ca nan

dshoul dhandle th e shor t ter m notic e events , an

drestric t th e semiannua l repor t t o providin g a permanen t recor do f th e shor t ter m exceedances / deviation s (covere db y th e permi t notic e proces s for earlie r reports ) an dth e other , les s seriou s exceedances/deviations (suc ha s operatin g parameter s no t resultin g inexces s emissions) . Initia l report s shoul db e consisten t i ntimin g spelle d ou t inth e complianc e pla n(whic hi s t o b e submitte d eithe r a s par t o f th e permi t applicatio no r prio r t o HO

N compliance , whic heve r come s first ) i t I I .« _ xmonth s

An y change s inanemission s poin t fro m a grou p2 t o a grou p1 shoul dbe handle da s par t o f th e permi t chang e requirements .P.5 5

ATTACHMENT HP.5 6

COMPLIANC E GRIDLOC K Legislativ e Authorit y

* Sectio n 112(i)(3)(A ) prevent s EP Afro mextendin g th e complianc e tim e fo r th e HO Npas t 3 year s afte r th e "effectiv e date " o f th e rul e

* Sectio n 11 2 ( i (3 ) (B ) allow s th e Administrato r o r th e permittin g authorit yt o gran t a l yea r complianc e extensio n throug h th e issuanc e o f a permi t "i f suc h additiona l perio d i s necessar y fo r th e installatio n o f controls. " Regulator yDiscretio n

* EP Acanno t allo wmor e tha n 3 year s fo r complianc e i n th e rul e

* Decision s t o gran t th e extr a 1 yea r fo r complianc e mus t b e mad e o n a cas e b ycas e basi s throug h th e permittin g proces s ttMVRegulatoryOption s

* Reduc e th e Numbe r o f Action s require d t o Compl y

- Stagge r promulgatio n o f th e HO Nby :

- Produc t processe s

- Kind s o f emissio n point s

- Redefin e "Compliance " t o b e mor e proces s oriente d

- Complianc e woul d mea n submitta l o f necessar ypaper s i n th e pursui t o f approva l t o appl ycontrols , no t actua l applicatio n o f control s Klfr-U

- &JjfrXy*Xor>t\ Cp-Hpv\ S * Reduc e tn e Tim e take n byth e Action s require d t o Compl y

- Spee d th e issuanc e o f Constructio n Permit s

- State s hav e direc t authority , no t EP A

- However , EP Acoul d hel p State s Streamlin e th e process :

- Focu s mos t review s o n emission s increase s

- Develo p mor e Exemption s fo r simpl e contro l technolog yinstallation s

- Us e th e Implementatio n Progra mt o prioritiz e point s fo r constructio n permi t review s Provid e Technica l Assistanc e t o States , Permittin g Authoritie s an d Owner/Operator s

- Spee d understandin g o f rule' s requirement s an d wha t constitute s complianc e (Applicability t Grou p 1 v s 2 )

- Provid e inf o o n contro l tech
. us e an d effectivenes s

- Somethin g t o hel p wit h lab/testin g needs ?P.5 7

ATTACHMENT IP.5 8

ATTACHMENT JP.5 9

IMPLEMENTATION

PROGRA

M

Curren t Draft :

* Initia l Notificatio n= Implementatio nProgra m

* Requirement s fo r point s i nanEmission s Average : 1 ) Describ e th e point s i nth e intende daverage , including :

- Poin t identificatio n

- Grou p1 o r Grou p2 statu s fo r eac hpoin t

- Contro l technolog y fo r controlle dpoint s 2 ) Describ e how

th e averag e wil l work , including :

- Whic hpoint s wil l b e credi t generator s

- Whic hpoint s wil l b e debi t generator s

- How th e averag e wil l balanc e 3 ) Stat e th e intende dMonitoring , Recordkeepin g & Reportin g

- Equa l t o requirement s fo r Grou p1 point s tha t ar e no t i na naverag e

- Plus , whateve r els e i s neede dfo r th e emission s estimatio nequation s

* Requirement s fo r point s no t i na naverage : MO- t 1 ) Describ e th e point s A i nth e intende daverage , including :

- Poin t identificatio n

- Grou p1 o r Grou p2 statu s fo r eac hpoin t

- Contro l technolog y fo r Grou p1 point s

* Requirement s fo r al l point s (i naverage s andnot) : 1 ) Implementatio nProgra m mus t b e submitte dwithin12 0 day s o f th e rule' s "effectiv e date " 2 ) Permit-styl e revie w o f th e implementatio nprogram befor e th e complianc e dat e 3 ) Implementatio nProgram wil l includ e alternativ e operatin g scenarios , a s appropriat e 4 ) Implementatio nProgram wil l b e update di nwritin g i f point s o r control s chang e 5 ) Implementatio nProgram wil l b e supplemente di f new point s ar e adde dto th e sourc eP.6 0

INITIAL NOTIFICATION& IMPLEMENTATIO NPROGRA

M
Alternativ e Requirements :

* Initia l Notificatio n

- Du e withi n 12 0 day s o f th e rule' s "effectiv e date "

- Shoul d include :

- Nam e an

d addres s o f owner/operato r

- Addres s o f th e affecte d sourc e

- Adescriptio n o f th e source' s nature , siz e an d operatio n

- An identificatio n o f th e proces s unit s a t tha t sourc e tha t ar e subjec t t o Subpar t G

* Implementatio n Program

- Du e withi n 1 8 month s o f th e "effectiv e date " i f a n operatin g permi t applicatio n ha s no t ye t beensubmitte d fo r tha t sourc e

- Requirement s fo r point s i n a n Emission s Average : 1 ) Describ e th e point s i n th e intende d averag e 2 ) Describ e ho wth e averag e wil l wor k 3 ) Stat e tha t Monitoring , Recordkeepin g an d Reportin g wil l be :

- Equa l t o requirement s fo r Grou p 1 point s

- Plus , wha t i s neede d fo r emission s estimatio n 4 ) Permit-styl e revie wo f th e implementatio n program befor e th e complianc e dat e

- Requirement s fo r point s no t i n a n average : 1 ) Describ e th e point s i n th e intende d average , including :

- Poin t identificatio n

- Group 1 o r Group 2 statu s fo r eac h poin t

- Contro l technologyfo r Grou p 1 point s

- Requirement s fo r al l point s (i n average s and not) : 1 ) Implementatio n Progra mwil l includ e alternativ e operatin g scenarios , a s appropriat e 2 ) Implementatio n Programwil l b e update d i n writin g i f point s o r control s chang e 3 ) Implementatio n Programwil l b e supplemente d i f ne w point s ar e adde d t o th e sourc e