p.1 

OAR Box 1875 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

27) ll-E-45 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/1/200811:12:45 AM Sheet 27 of 86 
P.2 

W <£> 

A-90-19 

ll-E-45 

\« S* > MEETING SUMMARY 

Ma-riufa'cturers Association (CMA) with the Environmental Protection 

\« \ , This^ocument summarizes the meeting of the Chemical 

\ 

^Agency (EPA), held on June 18, 1992, at the North Carolina Mutual 

Life Building in Durham, North Carolina. The discussion was 

divided into seven sections: Recordkeeping and Reporting, 

Monitoring, Compliance Gridlock, Process Vents, Transfer, 

Implementation Plan, and Storage (see Attachment A). A list of 

participants is in Attachment B. 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Mr. Bruce Jordan, director of the Emissions Standards 

Division (ESD), welcomed the CMA and indicated that the goal of 

the meeting would be to walk through the various issues CMA had 

raised at previous meetings and to see if many of these issues 

could be resolved by clarification. Mr. Jordan asked if CMA had 

any general questions before addressing the seven items on the 

agenda. The CMA began by asking what the current schedule was 

for proposing the rule. Mr. Jordan indicated that the EPA has 

been working with the States and the National Governor's 

Association and has been meeting with the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). So far, EPA has been briefing OMB on the 

contents of the regulation, so the EPA does not yet know OMB's 

position on the regulation. The EPA plans to discuss with OMB 

the corrections and clarifying changes to the regulation as well 

as provisions added to provide operational flexibility. 

Mr. Jordan concluded the discussion by indicating that the EPA 

currently predicts proposal in late October. 

Next, CMA asked if they could see the changes EPA is making 

to the package before they go to OMB. Mr. Jordan said that CMA 

could see drafts of the substantive changes resulting from 

discussions between EPA and CMA about CMA issues, but would not 

hon0792(ls) 1 
P.3 

be sent minor typographical corrections and other non-substantive 

changes. 

Ms. Daphne McMurrer of the EPA's Standards Development 

Branch (SDB) distributed a list of the major questions that had 

resulted from the previous EPA/CMA discussion. The list was 

divided into the seven areas of discussion for the present 

meeting (see Attachment C). 

2.0 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING 

Ms. McMurrer began the discussion by distributing two items 

specific to recordkeeping and reporting: (1) a list of questions 

for which the EPA is currently seeking input (Attachment D), and 

(2) a list of potential draft strategies for reducing the current 

reporting and recordkeeping burden to industry (Attachment E). 

Ms. McMurrer started the discussion with ideas for reducing 

industry recordkeeping/reporting burden (Attachment E). She 

reviewed four different approaches in the regulation and invited 

the group to discuss these alternatives. The purpose of the 

discussion was to get reactions to staff level ideas on methods 

to reduce the burden while assuring that necessary information is 

provided. 

Discussion of Approach I on the Handout (Attachment E) 

The first approach (Approach I in Attachment E) involves an 

annual compliance certification by the facility, rather than the 

current periodic reporting approach. 

CMA - What does "certification" mean in Item No. 1 under 

Approach I? Does it mean that industry is in compliance with all 

emission limits for the whole year or just that industry has 

followed their plan (e.g., taken corrective action when they 

discovered a problem, even if for a short time emissions were 

above the limits). 

EPA - To certify compliance, one must be assured that the source 

met its emission limit. However, if this type of system were 

implemented, the HON would still require checking on control 

hon0792(ls) 2 
P.4 

equipment and the operation of it, 'not emission rates. This 

would be the process for determining "certification." 

CMA - This alternative plan seems set up for industry to work 

more with the permitting authority, similar to the current Texas 

permit process. 

EPA - Yes, however, it would be the Title V operating permit 

authority. 

CMA - Could you clarify what you mean by the self-policing option 

(#2 under Approach I)? 

EPA - The idea is that an internal industry audit group is 

established which reports directly to the company president, or 

is otherwise independent. This option has the problem that it 

might not be very acceptable to States who tend not to trust 

self-policing policies. 

CMA - Does the performance test, mentioned in idea No. 3 under 

Approach I, carry all the burden of the General Provisions? 

EPA - Yes, with the exception of the quality assurance plan which 

does not apply because it's already in the test methods used to 

determine compliance with HON. 

CMA - What would a performance test involve (e.g., for a flare)? 

EPA - For incinerators and other testable controls, the approach 

under No. 3 would require annual tests. This could be more 

testing than currently in the HON. Storage tanks, flares, and 

other emission points that cannot be tested would require 

calculation of emissions by some other means. 

Discussion of Approach II (Attachment E) 

The second approach (Approach II in Attachment E) describes 

an incentive system where the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements vary depending on the sources' performance. It was 

noted that this alternative could significantly increase the 

complexity of the regulation and could increase the industry 

recordkeeping/reporting burden for sources with poor records. 

General Reporting and Recordkeeping Discussion 

EPA - What are CMA's major concerns with respect to the 

recordkeeping and reporting burden? 

hon0792(ls) 3 
P.5 

CMA - The main problem is with keeping a large volume of 

information readily accessible. We feel many of these records 

are of minor importance with respect to compliance, and yet we 

could be fined for not having a specific piece of paper, even if 

it has little to do with compliance. 

EPA - Historically, enforcement actions have not been undertaken 

if one record is lost, as long as the facility does not have a 

habit of losing records. The EPA needs many of these records to 

determine and understand certain non-compliance situations. 

CMA - We are also concerned that the data we have may not be in a 

format that an EPA inspector would like. For example, at one 

plant operated by a computer, the computer only records and 

stores records when parameters are out of a pre-determined range. 

It does not store records when parameters are within the range. 

This system has greatly reduced the number of operators in a 

facility. However, such a system would not satisfy the HON as 

currently drafted. In addition, some older plants are not run 

with computers, but are rather operated by individuals. Current 

personnel would not have time to prepare all the required 

records. 

EPA - How many plants have automated records? 

CMA - Many plants do not have automated records; however, most 

continuously operating plants are computer-controlled. 

It was suggested that a productive approach would be to set 

up a working group to consider and suggest approaches to reduce 

the burden while maintaining the stringency of the standard. It 

was agreed that the EPA and CMA would meet on July 17 to work on 

these questions. 

Discussion of CMA Handouts (Attachment F and G) 

The CMA presented their suggestions for recordkeeping and 

reporting. First, CMA summarized four issues in their handout 

(third page of Attachment F, on reporting and recordkeeping). 

The CMA clarified the third issue on this handout. For reporting 

both tests and control device operating parameters, CMA suggested 

that the due date be 90 days after the end of the reporting 

hon0792(ls) 4 
P.6 

period, rather than 30 days as currently required in the draft 

HON. The EPA stated that the EPA's compliance division might be 

open to these ideas and that the EPA needs to verify that these 

time periods are typical for industry in producing reports. 

The CMA then presented their ideas for reducing reporting 

requirements in the HON by incorporating a concept of "exception 

reporting" (Attachment G). The CMA explained that in the draft 

HON, some reporting requirements are tied to events while others 

are tied to specific dates. The CMA tried to simplify this 

complex schedule into one semi-annual report that would summarize 

all the relevant reportable information. 

The CMA assumed that reporting of changes (e.g., operating 

changes that cause an emission point to change from Group 2 to 

Group 1) would fall under permit requirements. However, the EPA 

thought that the permit system will not handle these changes 

unless the HON or another regulation specifically requires it. 

Some of these changes may be relatively minor and not involve 

construction or a major change in operation; these would not 

trigger a permit revision, and may need to be addressed in the 

HON. The CMA indicated that it would look into this issue. The 

EPA and CMA concluded that the issue should be discussed at the 

July 17 work group meeting. 

The EPA suggested that CMA provide case studies for plants 

with each kind of emission point, discussing what kinds of 

internal reporting and recordkeeping they already do. The EPA 

would then look into what the current HON draft requires for each 

case, and what the new ideas (discussed in the EPA and CMA 

handouts) would require for the case studies. 

3.0 MONITORING 

The discussion of monitoring concerned the question of what . 

distinguishes a violation, or what differentiates an exceedance 

from a violation? 

hon0792(ls) 5 
CMA - [referring to page 385 of the draft HON where there is a 

table showing the process vents recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for boundary parameter exceedances] - What does the 

"exceedance" mean (e.g., if a combustion device is 51 degrees 

below the value measured during the most recent performance test, 

what does the exceedance mean)? 

EPA - As drafted in the December 24, 1991 version of the HON, an 

exceedance is not a violation, but rather an indicator of 

possible problems or excess emissions. If the control device is 

operated as it was during the performance test, the required 

emission reduction should be achieved. Temperature values below 

the pre-specified ranges indicate that the device may have a 

problem. If the operation of a control device changes such that 

it continues to operate out of the specified range, the source 

may need to do another performance test, which is the only way to 

know whether the device is meeting its limit. This is the same 

approach taken in previous NSPS. 

CMA - We are concerned that these exceedances may be viewed as 

violations under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Finally, EPA and CMA agreed that the EPA should explicitly 

state in the HON that monitoring parameter exceedances of the 

draft package are not a violation of the emission standard. This 

wording should be put in Subpart F or G. 

CMA - We are concerned that under different operating levels, we 

get a great range in values for the various parameters 

(e.g., temperature). The HON requires that we measuretemperature at "representative conditions", yet it is often 

difficult to establish a "representative" temperature with one 

performance test under one set of operating conditions. 

EPA - How much do the parameters change? The regulation allows 

temperature variation up to 50 degrees. 

The EPA agreed to discuss this issue at the next meeting. 

hon0792(ls) 
P.8 

4.0 COMPLIANCE GRIDLOCK 

CMA - We think subcategorizing the HON is a worthwhile idea. 

Consider the idea of having 3 groups of chemicals with different 

compliance schedules. This idea was presented in the 

May 28, 1991 letter. Other ways to subcategorize would include 

air oxidation processes versus other reactors and halogenated 

versus nonhalogenated compounds. 

We also would like to build language into the HON to 

automatically allow a 1-year extension for delays beyond a 

company's control.. The Clean Air Act allows 1-year extensions 

beyond the 3-year compliance time. 

EPA - We have not yet discussed the 1-year extension with the 

Office of the General Council (OGC). We do not believe the EPA 

has the legal authority to write a blanket extension into the 

rule. Section 112 implies that an extension would be case-bycase and ties extensions to the permit. "Through the permit" is 

in the CAA clause on compliance extensions. 

The CMA and EPA both thought it might be possible to put 

some language in the preamble or guidance document encouraging 

the implementing authority to consider extensions in cases where 

compliance is not possible due to circumstances beyond a plant's 

control. 

The EPA handed out a list of options for reducing the burden 

impact associated with the 3-year compliance schedule currently 

in the rule (Attachment H). These options were discussed as 

follows. 

CMA - What about altering the effective or applicability date for 

different subsets of chemicals? 

EPA - We cannot create different effective dates or different 

applicability dates. The effective date is defined as the date 

of promulgation. In addition, we cannot extend the compliance 

deadline beyond 3 years after the effective date. The statute 

states that there is a maximum of 3 years for compliance. The 

hon0792(ls) 7 
P.9 

only way to stagger compliance would be to promulgate the 

regulation at different times for different subsets of chemicals. 

One problem with staggered compliance is that if we break 

HON into subcategories, there can be no emissions averaging 

across subcategories-because they would be separate MACT 

standards. This is the OGC's current legal position. 

CMA - There may be ways you could group chemicals into subsets 

that would not be at the same facilities that would not need to 

do emissions averaging anyway. 

CMA also asked if EPA had raised this compliance gridlock 

problem with the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 

Administrators (STAPPA). They might have some ideas for solution 

to the potential permit backlog problem. 

EPA - We will continue to raise this issue at management 

briefings. We can also continue to pursue the non-regulatory 

options in Attachment H. 

5.0 PROCESS VENTS 

Ms. Sheila Milliken of the EPA's SDB began the discussion by 

requesting clarification of CMA's request that the HON allow use 

of another control device (non-combustion) to achieve 

98 percent reduction. 

CMA - We would like a provision that allows us to use scrubbers 

and other non-combustion devices, or to apply to the permit 

authority to use them on a case-by-case basis. 

EPA - We may need to add something to the vent provisions to 

allow something other than a combustion device, especially since 

this option is alluded to in the monitoring section for process 

vents. We could put in a provision for a "non-recovery device" 

achieving 98 percent efficiency. The intent of the current 

drafting is to ensure use of destruction devices that achieve 

98 percent reductions because the provisions already allow 

recovery devices to be used for compliance if they raise the TRE 

of the vent stream to above 1.0. 

hon0792(ls) 8 
P.10 

Ms. Milliken next reviewed the summary of CMA concerns on 

Process Vents (Attachment C), indicating those items where 

questions remained. She said that on page 3 (Compliance Issues), 

Item 2 is being researched, though the EPA agrees with CMA that 

the language needs to be clarified, and the EPA is currently 

working on how to incorporate the ideas in Items 3 and 5. She 

indicated that on page 4 (Process Vents - Miscellaneous), the EPA 

is still considering Item 2, but all other items are decided. 

Discussion df the Matrix (Attachment C) and CMA's Handouts 

(Attachments F and I) on Process Vents 

CMA - [in response to Page 1, Item 4 of the process vents section 

of EPA's matrix (Attachment C)] - Based on some statistical 

analysis of the variability of the parameters in the TRE 

equations, we determined that for process vents with a TRE above 

a certain value, engineering knowledge can be used instead of 

emission testing to calculate TRE and determine that the emission 

point is Group 2. In some cases, engineering knowledge of key 

parameters may be sufficient to determine that a vent is Group 2 

without performing any TRE calculation. [This topic is also 

discussed in CMA's handout (Attachment F) under Process Vents, 

Item 1.5.] 

EPA - We would like some information on how CMA would get 

"engineering knowledge" to do this statistical analysis and to 

estimate TRE once the regulation is in effect if you are not 

testing. For distillation streams, it may be difficult to know 

the concentrations, HAP emissions, etc. 

CMA - We will provide this information to the EPA. Additionally, 

we would like the EPA to identify which streams in the BID table 

are halogenated versus non-halogenated. 

EPA - We will provide this information. 

The EPA and CMA agreed to get a group together to discuss 

this issue in a teleconference. 

The CMA provided some draft new language to include under 

63.115, which would allow best engineering estimates for 

hon0792(ls) 
P.11 

determining TRE. (See the Process Vents section of Attachment F, 

Item 1). 

The EPA and CMA agreed to arrange a conference call once 

their analyses are complete to incorporate a specific TRE value. 

The CMA then presented its response to Item 4 of its first 

handout on process vents (Attachment F) which concerns procedures 

for a Group 2 vent becoming a Group 1 vent. (See Attachment I.) 

CMA - We would like the EPA to clarify in the HON that 63.115(c) 

applies to changes that are not Section 112(g) modifications. 

EPA - We can clarify this point. 

CMA - In some cases, we need more than 180 days after a Group 2 

vent becomes a Group 1 to install controls required for 

compliance and conduct a performance test (if necessary for the 

control device used). Only after a process change takes place 

can we measure TRE and be sure if it's a Group 1 or.2. At that 

point, we need more than 180 days after a Group 2 vent becomes 

Group 1 to install controls. 

EPA - In setting the 180 day deadline, we assumed that by the 

time you made a change, you would know what control you needed 

and add the device at the same time as the change. The 180 days 

to conduct a performance test and achieve compliance seemed 

adequate for this scenario. Given this new information, the EPA 

will think over this issue further and check into 112(g). This 

issue needs to coordinate with 112(g). We might consider 

offsetting these emissions during the process of installing the 

control device beyond the 180 day period. . We must consider what 

timeframe is allowable if it does not trigger 112(g). 

CMA - [responding to Item 6 on their handout on Page 5 of Process 

Vents (Attachment F) dealing with halogenated vent streams] - We 

still prefer a halogen concentration measurement 

(i.e., measurement of Cl, Br, Fl), but would accept measuring by 

compound, which is currently in the draft HON. 

We also would like to mention a new issue concerning the 

cost effectiveness of scrubbers designed to achieve 98 versus 

hon0792Us) 1 0 
P.12 

99 percent efficiency. (The draft HON would require 99 percent 

reduction.) 

The EPA said that it would review the current language and 

provide CMA with more information regarding the choice of 

99 percent efficiency. 

6.0 TRANSFER 

Ms. Milliken of the EPA began by reviewing the list of CMA 

comments and questions in Attachment C, page 5 on transfer 

operations. The discussion was limited to unresolved issues. 

Discussion of Items 3, 4 and 7 (Attachment C) 

Mr. David Markwordt of the EPA summarized Department of 

Transportation (DOT) rules concerning pressure test 

certification. Mr. Markwordt indicated that the DOT does 

regulate tank trucks, and after 1993 will require annual testing. 

He said that the DOT rule also indicated that it is the loader's 

obligation to load vessels that show evidence that they have been 

tested. 

CMA - Why must we use Method 27? Why not use DOT testing 

methods? We are also concerned with the burden of keeping 

records of tank vapor tightness at the chemical plant loading 

rack. 

EPA - The EPA's Emissions Measurement Branch (EMB) is currently 

working on determining if Method 27 and the DOT methods are 

equivalent test methods. If that is the case, the DOT method 

could be added as an option in the HON. 

Discussion of Item 9 (Attachment C) 

EPA - We are not opposed to the concept of using a dome 

collection device. (Mr. Markwordt showed CMA a diagram that was 

given to him of this device.) We may allow this device as an 

alternative. In order to add a provision, we would need to 

figure out the wording to allow this and be sure that it is a 

well-designed system. 

hon0792(ls) 1 1 
P.13 

Discussion of Items 5. 6. and 8 (Attachment C) 

CMA - Concerning Item 5, the every-two-minute temperature 

monitoring seems excessive. 

EPA - We will consider this issue as a new reporting and 

recordkeeping issue. 

CMA - Concerning Item 6, CMA supports allowance of vapor 

balancing. It could either be assumed that vapor balancing is 

equivalent to 98 percent control so that vapor balancing transfer 

operations would be exempt from the requirement to add further 

controls, or vapor balancing could be allowed as a creditgenerating alternative (See Attachment F, Transfer, Item 3). 

EPA - We are pursuing language to allow vapor balancing as an 

alternative reference control technology under the transfer 

provisions. It might also be used to get averaging credit if a 

source can show it gets over 98 percent reduction. However, this 

is not likely to be a sizeable credit because transfer emissions 

are relatively small. 

It was also agreed to consider making vapor balancing an 

exemption if the vapors from the transfer operation were vapor 

balanced to a pressure vessel. 

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

Ms. Daphne McMurrer shared some ideas that the EPA's work 

group is considering as an alternative to the current 

implementation plan language (see Attachment J). The EPA's 

language was considered in light of CMA's ideas in their handout 

(see Attachment F, page 1). 

CMA - We question the legal authority for the EPA to require a 

compliance plan on non-averaging points prior to the three-year 

compliance time. The CMA also believes that the implementation 

plan for emissions averaging points should be due six months 

prior to the compliance date rather than 18 months after the 

effective date, as proposed today by EPA. 

hon0792(ls) 12 
o 

3 O P> 

P-

3 •O 

M 

ro 

3 

ro 3 rt OJ rt PO 

3 TI 

M 0) 

3 cr 

ro 0 

y 

c (0 

ro P- rt tr OJ 

W 

y 

M M. 

ro Dl 

OJ 

>< Mj P- P" 

ro 

o. 

y •o 

ro H 

g P

-

rt 

> 

i-1 (A 

0 

^ P

-

3 (0 rt (D PJ 

a 

O M> 

ro 

X 

ro 

3 •a r t P3 vQ 01 H) D> 

0 P

-

M P- rt 

^ M> M. 

0 

3 TJ 

. 

0 

< P

-

Oa P3 uQ Ol 

3 

H r t 

£ P

-

P" 

M r t Dl 

* 

ro 

y M) 

ro 

£ 

3 

O 

3 r t tr cn r t 

O 

n 

ro 

o 

ro P-

< 

ro Dl 

3 CL 

d 

3 

Oa 

ro M. cn rt D> 

3 

a 

it-

s' 

ro 

ri 

c P> 

ro 

• 

o 

B 

i 

w P- u3 3* rt 

ro 

ro 3 

3 

O 

3 rt 3* cn P- cn rt 

o 0 cn tr 0 

. 

rt rt 

O 

a 

o Dl 

3 P

-

3 TJ 

t-a 

ro 

3 

ro 

3 r t D> rt PO 

3 TJ Dl 

3 

• 

P> 00 

3 

O 

3 rt 3* 

W 

• PJ tr 

ro *< tr 

ro M Pro 

< 

ro rt 3" 

ro 

ri 

ro •8 

ro cn rt P- cn 

3 

O rt 

ro 

X 

0 

ro 

w cn P-

< 

ro * 

0 M> 

a o> rt Oi 

0 

3 rt 

tr 

ro 

3 

O 

3 

1 0) 

< 

ro 

n Ol 03 P3 

-i T l 

O P

-

3 rt cn tr 

ro H) 

O 

ri 

ro 

0 

o 

3 -a P" P- 0) 

3 

O 

ro ** 

£ P

-

rt 3* P3 

H _> 

> 

1 HI ar 

ro 

0 

0 

3 TJ 

M P- Oi 

3 

O 

ro 

iQ M. 

0 

c T l cn 

£ P

-

rt 3* P3 

W 

*n 

> 

£ 01 

3 

rt rt 3* P- cn 

3 P

-

3 P

-

3 Dl 

t-1 01 

3 

o 

c 

3 rt 

P-

3 M) 

0 M. 

3 0) rt pO 

3 

O 

3 rt 3* 

ro 

3 

O 

3 

1 0> 

< 

ro ri 

y «n P3 

<Q T I 

O P

-

3 rt cn 

t-> 

y f t 

ro 

. 

•o 

D) 

< 

ro 

n 

y uq P3 vQ 0J 

3 

a 

li- ar 

ro cn d tr 

3 P

-

r t rt 0> 

t-1 M> 

0 M. 

o rt cr 

ro ri TJ 

0 P

-

3 r t cn ^ D) 

3 

a cn 

c tr 

3 P

-

rt r t tr 

ro 

o 

9 

1 

o 0 

d M 

a 

£ 

ro cn 

ro TJ Ol 

n 

y r t 

ro P3 rt P3 

ro 

li- ar 

ro cn 

d tr 

3 P

-

rt rt 0) 

t-1 M) 

O M. 

ro 

3 P

-

cn cn PO 

3 cn . 

T l 

M 01 

0 

ro Ol 

3 

Oa 

O T l 

ro ri 01 rt P3 

iQ tr 

ro M) 

0 

. 

ro r t tr 

ro CJ 

i 

• < 

ro 01 

ri 

o. 

y r t 

ro 

• 

M •d 

> 

i 

> cn 0 

d r< 

O 

ro 

K 

O 

d M 

a 

3 

O 

it- er 

ro M. 

ro 

« H

-

ri 

ro 

a rt 

0 tr 01 

< 

ro rt 3" 

ro 

o 

o 

3 r t 

H 

o 

r-> CO H3 

U) 

1 

• < 

ro o> 

. 

o 

0 

3 T l 

M H- D> 

3 

O 

ro TJ 

ro ri H0 

a • 

rt 

. 

^ rt 

O M) 

0 r< 

o 

ro rt tr 

ro CO rt 01 rt 

ro cn rt 

O 

OO cn 

O 

3 

ro r t cr H3 vQ 

a H- Mi Ml 

ro ri 

ro 

3 r f O* 

ro M) 

o 

. 

ro rt ar 

ro 

£ H

-

I-1 

M cr 

. H3 

vQ. 0i cn 

o 

d 

M 

O 

ro H3 f t 

o 

O 

0 

3 T l 

M H- 0> 

3 

O 

ro 

• * rt tr 

ro 

3 

w •d 

> 

o ri cn 

0 

3 

ro 0 

3 

ro 

ro M cn 

ro 

3 Ol 

0 

0 

3 

O 

ro 

n 

3 

ro Oa rt tr 0) rt p- M> 

M *d 

> 0) 

3 

Oa H3 

a d cn rt 

ri 

*< 

a H- cn DJ 

iQ 

^ 

ro 

ro 

o 3 

K tr 

ro el- s' 

ro 

. Dl TJ 

M D» 

3 

M. 

O 

M 

ro 

o M) rt tr 

ro H3 rM a 

ro 

3 

ro 

3 rt Di r t Ho 3 TJ 

t-> 

y 

3 

••0 

H cn H- rt 0) 

O rt 

d o> H 

H 

• < 

d cn 

ro 

a 

••o 

s 

ro 01 

ro 

o 

s 

1 

a 3 f t HM rt tr 

ro TJ 

ro K 

3 H

-

r t 0) TJ T i 

M H

-

o Di rt HO 

3 H

-

cn 

ro 

3 M) 

o ri 

O 

ro o> tr M 

ro ^ 

c tr 

y r t H- cn rt tr 

ro 

H-

3 TJ 

t-1 

ro 

3 

ro 

3 rt 0) rt Ho 

3 TJ 

t-> 01 

3 

W tr 

o 

d M 

Oa tr 

ro p3 

O 

M 

d 

a 

ro 

a p3 rt tr 

ro TJ 

ro 

y H- rt 0) TJ TJ 

M H

-

O D> rt po 

3 

P-

3 TJ 

M 

ro 

3 

ro 3 rt Di rt po 3 T l 

M Dl 

3 

• tc 0 

K 

ro 

< 

ro ri 

• y 

rt tr 

ro 

o 

o 

g 

3 p

-

r t 

3 

ro 3 rt cn p3 rt tr 

ro 

T l 

ro K 

3 p

-

rt 

y Tf •a p> p0 Ol rt pO 

3 P

-

cn 

rt 

V 

ro cr p3 

a p3 

iQ 

a 

o 

o d 

3 

ro 3 rt 

» 

3 

O r t rt tr 

ro 

M »d 

> 

i 

o 3 

O 

ro Dl TJ 

ro K 

3 p

-

rt Di TJ TJ 

t-a 

t->-

o 

y rt po 

3 P

-

cn cn d tr 

3 p

-

r t rt 

ro 

a 

• » 

£ 

ro cr 

ro t-> pro 

< 

ro rt 

V 

y rt rt 

ro 

cn 

d cr cn 

d 

3 

ro 

a cr 

*< r t tr 

ro 

o 

o 

3 TJ 

r-> P- 01 

3 

O 

ro TJ 

t-1 01 

3 

-\i 

Oa 

O 

ro cn rt tr 

ro p3 Tl 

H 

ro 

3 

ro 

3 rt 0) rt p0 

3 TJ P" D> 

3 

O 

O 

3 rt p3 

d 

ro rt 

0 tr 

ro 

3 

ro Dl 

3 P

-

3 

<Q M) 

d 

r-1 

0 

ri P

-

cn p- rt 

rt tr 

y 

rt rt tr 

ro M) 0» 

o pM p- rt »< 

3 

d cn r t cn d cr 

3 p

-

r t 01 T l 

ro H 

3 p

-

f t Dl TJ TJ 

M PO Ol f t p0 

3 Dl r t 

w 

o 

3 

o 3 rt cn 

Dl 

3 

a r t 

tr 

ro 3 

rt- ar 

ro T l 

ro 

y P" r t 01 

C 

rt-

ar 

o 

. 

p-

r t »< vQ 

ro r t 

to Di T) TJ r< 

O 

< 

ro 

a p

-

3 r t cr 

ro pri cn r t DJ r t 

ro 

» cn 

o 

o 

g 

i 

H M> 01 M) DJ 

O P

-

M P- r t 

*< 

w d cr 3 pit- cn Ol 

3 P

-

3 TJ 

M 

ro 

3 

ro 

3 r t 0* r t pO 

3 TJ P> Ol 

3 Di r t 

t-a 00 

3 

O 

3 rt tr cn 

Ml 

O 

ri 

rt 

tf 

ro Tf 

d 

i-( TJ 

O 

W 

ro 

O M) 

ro 3 M> 

O 

f-j 

o 

ro 

3 

ro 3 rt 

• 

rt tr 

ro 

w 

• < 

ro DJ 

. 

o 

O 

3 TJ 

t-a p- Di 

3 

n 

ro 

a 

ro 01 

a M 

. P-

3 

ro rt 

O ri 

ro 

< p

-

ro 

£ rt 

tr 

ro p3 TJ H

1 

ro 

3 

ro 3 rt DJ rt po 3 TJ 

t-1 DJ 

3 

• _ 

d n< f t 

tr 

ro p. 

3 

o ri 

ro 

• • rt 

tr 

ro 

M 00 

3 

O 

3 rt tr cn p- cn D) 

o 

o 3 TS 

ri 

o 

3 P

-

cn 

ro 

• 

s 

ro 

3 

ro 

ro 

a rt p3 

ro tr 

ro M) 

o M. 

ro 

p-

3 

O P" 

d 

a 

ro 

ro 

3 

o 

y 

iQ tr 

a 

ro rt 

y p

-

p" M) 

o ri 

y 

Ul 

rt 

O 

3 D> 

X 

ro rt 

tr p- cn 

a 

ro rt 

ro ri 

3 p

-

3 0J f t Po 3 

• 

d 

3 

Oa 

ro M. cn rt 0J 

3 

Oa 

Vt 

rt 

tr 

ro M. 

ro 

•Q 

d p

-

r< 

ro 

3 

ro 3 rt cn 

• 

_l 

tr 

ro p3 P- f t P- 0J P

1 

3 

o f t P- Mi Po Di rt pO 

3 

Oa 

O 

ro cn 

3 

O 

li-

f t ar 

ro p3 TJ P

1 

ro 

3 

ro 3 f t 

y 

rt po 

3 Tf P

1 

Ol 

3 cn O rt 

tr 0J rt 

£ 

ro 

o OJ 

3 tr 

ro cn d M. 

ro 

li- ar Di rt OJ M> 0J 

o p- P" p- ft 

H 

* 

> 

1 Pl 

tr 

ro 

3 

O 

3 

1 

ro 

3 p

-

cn cn pO 

3 cn DJ 

< 

ro rf Di 

iQ. p3 vQ 

TJ-

O P

-

3 

it- cn 

3 

ro 

ro 

a rt 

o cr 

ro p3 

o 

r-1 

c 

a 

ro 

a p3 
P.15 

application, could the EPA exempt a facility because its State 

has already established a permit program? 

EPA - We do not think that this change would achieve the goals of 

having an implementation plan for planning purposes. There might 

be a long time period between the time that a State permit 

program authority is approved and the permit application is 

submitted. The implementation plan needs to be in place, 

approved, and enforceable by the 3 year compliance date, whenever 

no permit is in place. 

Following this discussion, the EPA and CMA concluded that an 

initial notification and submittal of the implementation plan for 

emissions averaging points at 18 months may be workable. The CMA 

also expressed a need to discuss this further with their members. 

The CMA representative concluded that their concerns arise from 

the content and timing for a plan involving non-averaging points. 

8.0 STORAGE 

Ms. Mary Tom Kissell of EPA's SDB began the discussion about 

storage by reviewing and clarifying the status of the items 

listed in page 10 of Attachment C. The discussion was limited to 

unresolved issues. 

Referring to Item 5, Ms. Kissell said that the EPA could 

extend the repair period for controls beyond 72 hours as long as 

there were no working losses during the extended period. This 

topic prompted the following discussion. 

CMA - We believe that a repair period should be consistent with 

the time needed to repair an incinerator or flare (See 

Attachment F for Storage, Point 3). We checked with the people 

at one plant who indicated that the repairs would take one week. 

Those at a second plant said repair of a flare took 120 hours. 

We suggest that the repair period be extended to 120 hours. 

Furthermore, working losses should be allowed during this time. 

We are concerned with the restriction you mention on tank level 

during repair. At some facilities, there are many tanks tied 

hon0792(ls) 1 4 
P.16 

into a closed vent system. If a facility cannot raise the liquid 

level of any of these tanks, it would have to shut down the 

process. 

EPA - The 72-hour limitation came from the benzene storage 

regulation, but, given this new information, EPA could reconsider 

this requirement. 

We will have a work group study this issue to develop 

something equitable, considering the 45 day repair period 

currently allowed for floating decks. 

Regarding safety concerns.expressed by CMA (Attachment C, 

Item 6), Ms. Kissell said that after consulting with tank 

manufacturers, EPA concluded that a facility should know in 

advance the condition of its tanks and be able to replace a 

faulty tank before the time comes for inspection. This prompted 

the following discussion. 

CMA - This inspection approach originates in Subpart Kb of 40 CFR 

Part 60 (the NSPS for storage of volatile organic liquids). In 

the HON, we are dealing with a much larger population of tanks 

than Kb. Under the HON, there is at least a low probability that 

there will be problems with tank inspection safety. 

EPA - To have a safety exemption, we would need to have some 

provisions to identify objective criteria for determining that 

the tank is unsafe to inspect and what alternative inspection 

could be done to ensure that tank emissions are not excessive. 

Perhaps we could say that if inspection is unsafe according to 

OSHA requirements, we would allow a particular length period of 

time for the facility to correct the safety problem and inspect. 

We would like to add that we have 8 years of Kb data on storage 

tanks and no safety problems have been reported. 

9.0 WRAP-UP 

In wrapping up the meeting, the CMA and the EPA agreed to 

work toward resolving the unresolved storage tank and process 

vent issues by the beginning of July and the unresolved reporting 

hon0792(ls) 1 5 
P.17 

and recordkeeping issues by the end of July. For this purpose, 

joint CMA and EPA working groups were established. The CMA and 

the EPA concluded that the major issues on which their opinions 

differ are the implementation plan and compliance gridlock. They 

agreed that these two issues would not likely be resolved before 

August. A final meeting was arranged for August 5, 1992. 

hon0792(ls) 1 6 
P.18 

ATTACHMENT A 
P.19 

Meeting between CMA and EPA 

on Draft HON - 06/18 

Tentative Agenda 

11:00 Introduction 

11:15 Recordkeeping & Reporting 

12:15 Monitoring: What distinguishes a violation - what 

differentiates an exceedance from a violation? 

12:45 Lunch 

1:30 Compliance Gridlock 

2:15 Vents 

3:00 Transfer 

3:45 Implementation Plan 

4:15 Storage 

4:45 Wrap-up 
P.20 

ATTACHMENT B 
CMA/EPA MEETING 

June 18, 1992 

Attendance List 

P.21 

Name 

David Woodring 

Mark Piersante 

Kathy Bailey 

Amy Meyers 

Gary O'Dea 

Annette Stanley 

David Gustafson 

John Dege 

Linda Herring 

Bruce Jordan 

Mary Tom Kissell 

David Markwordt 

Daphne McMurrer 

Jan Meyer 

Shiela Milliken 

Debbie Stackhouse 

Kim Boudreaux 

Brian Taranto 

Chuck Malloch 

Denise Bevington 

Valerie Everette 

Bennett King 

Ruth Mead 

Tom Olsen 

Mae Thomas 

Joe Hovious 

David Davis 

Affiliation 

BP Chemicals 

Chevron Chemical Co. 

CMA 

CMA 

CMA 

CMA 

Dow Chemical 

DuPont 

EPA, ESD 

EPA, ESD 

EPA, ESD 

EPA, ESD 

EPA, ESD 

EPA, ESD 

EPA, ESD 

EPA, ESD 

Ethyl Corporation 

Exxon Chemical 

Monsanto 

Radian Corporation 

Radian Corporation 

Radian Corporation 

Radian Corporation 

Radian Corporation 

Radian Corporation 

Union Carbide 

Vulcan Chemicals 

Telephone Number 

216-586-8670 

510-842-5880 

202-887-1186 

202-887-1370 

202-887-1353 

202-887-1103 

517-636-2953 

302-773-4229 

919-541-5358 

919-541-5572 

919-541-4516 

919-541-0837 

919-541-0248 

919-541-5354 

919-541-2625 

919-541-5258 

504-388-7776 

713-870-6117 

314-694-8889 

919-541-9100 

919-541-9100 

919-481-0212 

919-541-9100 

919-541-9100 

919-541-9100 

203-794-5183 

205-877-3854 
ATTACHMENT C 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

PROCESS VENTS - Major Issues 

# CMA Comments/Questions 

Remove requirement that TRE be determined for all combinations of streams in process 

unit; revise rule to require TRE for individual vents only 

Remove requirement that TRE be determined for vents that are already controlled with 

the reference control technology (98% efficiency or 20 ppmv) 

Include a low flow cutoff to minimize burden of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

for small, low-emitting vent streams 

TRE should be initially calculated based on "engineering assessment". If TRE value is 

greater than "x", testing not necessary to verify TRE value. 

D = Decided W = Working on how to incorporate R = Researching N = Do not agree 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

PROCESS VENTS - Editorial Issues 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

CMA Comments/Questions 

Need clarification of what conditions are required during a performance test; regulation 

currently reads under "maximum" conditions 

Regulation is not clear that an actual measurement is required to determine if a 

halogenated vent stream has 100 ppmv 

Factor on p. 367 should be 2.494E-06 

TRE "b" constant for halogenated streams should be 1.417E-02 

Change "performance test" to "TRE Determination Test" or "Group Determination Test" 

Wording for bypass lines has been submitted to clarify requirements regarding bypass 

lines 

Requirement for recalculating TRE needs to exclude upsets or small unintentional 

operational changes 

D = Decided W = Working on how to incorporate R = Researching N = Do not agrct 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

PROCESS VENTS - Compliance 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

CMA Comments/Questions 

Want a definition for intermittent vents and to exclude them from rule 

TRE monitoring provisions need to be clarified; what should be monitored if no recovery 

device is used? 

Does not want to install an organic monitoring device; wants to state that 

alternative/equivalent monitoring device can be approved by permitting authority 

Not clear what equipment is not subj'ect to vents requirements; proposed wording 

addressing exception of low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents and equipment 

subject to 63.167 

Excessive burden associated with having to report changes and revised TRE calculations 

for process unit changes when the change does not change the vent from Group 2 to 

Group 1 

D = Decided W = Working on how to incorporate R = Researching N = Do not agree 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

PROCESS VENTS - Miscellaneous 

tt CMA Comments/Questions 

Use of word "any" in vent definitions causes confusion 

Change compound concentration basis to halogen and halide concentration basis 

Current definition for batch processes excludes many processes that are traditionally 

considered batch processes 

Are analyzer vents covered? 

D = Decided W = Working on how to incorporate . R = Researching N = Do not agree 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

TRANSFER OPERATIONS 

ft CMA Comments/Questions 

Drop definition of marine vessel 

2_ 

3 

Specify "annual" throughput for Group 1 racks 

Drop language requiring pressure test certification records on tank cars and trailers at loading site 

4_ 

5 

Drop requirement for pressure test certification; may duplicate DOT regulation 

Recording temperature at a two minute interval during performance test and monitoring causes 

unnecessarily large recordkeeping burden 

Want to include use of vapor balancing as an option 

Want an option to using Method 27 (vapor tightness) 

8 Want to operate vapor collection systems at a pressure less than the vapor tightness test pressure 

Want to use dome collection device 

10 HON needs details on Method 27 from Benzene rule 

11 Want rewrite regarding bypass lines similar to vents rule 

D = Decided W = Working on how to incorporate R = Researching N = Do not agree 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

WASTEWATER 

tt CMA Comments/Questions 

Landfill leachate should not be regulated in HON 

Which landfills will be regulated and will 100% of the leachate be subject? " V« 

When facilities discharge wastewater to POTW, the HON should not regulate past the \ 

outfall. 

Want point of generation moved to junction box (First air/water interface) 

« « T j *_L_ P _L* __I_L__ I*I*_L_ L 1 * Want point of generation moved to facilitate sampling 

m 

_ 

Co-mingling suppresses HAP emissions and should justify mixing streams and less/no 

control for lower concentration streams 

D = Decided W = Working on how to incorporate R = Researching N = Do not agree 

ro 

00 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

WASTEWATER (continued) 

CMA Comments/Questions 

M25D — several issues here: 

• Not good method mechanically speaking 

• Plant people not used to using 

• Measure potential emissions; not actual — want 

actual 

• Method too aggressive — measures compounds that 

will not volatilize from wastewater or that can be 

stripped out 

8 Regulatory text not clear 

Indirect contact streams such as runoffs, safety showers, etc., should be exempted from the HON; 

inclusion increases R & R burden and legal liability for very little return in reduced emissions. 

CMA prefers OCPSF definition of wastewater. 

10 Same as comment 9, but refers to indirect contact streams from heat exchanges, etc. 

D - Decided W = Working on how to incorporate R = Researching N = Do not agree 

* Interim drafts before September. 

ro 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

WASTEWATER (continued) 

It CMA Comments/Questions 

11 Ranges in Strippability Groups A-E are too broad — HON should regulate using 

each compound's actual strippability. 

12 Will bio-units be feasible option under HON and how will it all work? 

13 

14 

Need to change text — currently, the rule for notification does not work for 

continuous discharge, e.g., discharge into a POTW. 

EPA doesn't respond to CMA submittals such as a CH2M Hill study. 

15 Should not have to treat Strippability Group E residuals. 

D = Decided W = Working on how to incorporate R = Researching N = Do not agree 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

WASTEWATER (continued) 

CMA Comments/Questions 

16 Residual treatment options are too limiting; should allow sale. 

17 Emission estimates and cost estimates are incorrect. 

18 Where did 1 ppb limit for wastewater definition come from — it should be taken out of 

HON. 

19 Emission averaging equations need work 

20 Wastewater streams from batch processes should be exempted because of the difficulty of 

determining concentration and flowrate and demonstrating performance. 

21 Wants us to provide vapor pressure cutoffs for fixed roof wastewater storage tanks 

22 Should only be required to control for strippability Group A; definitely should not have 

to control for strippability Group E 

D = Decided W = Working on how to incorporate R = Researching N = Do not agree 

T l 

CO 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

STORAGE VESSELS 

CMA Comments/Questions 

Want standard at floor (1.9 psia); 0.75 psia (NSPS) or higher 

Vapor pressure cutoff cannot be measured below 0.2 psia using methods in API Bulletin 2517 (Reid 

vapor pressure) 

33 

_3_ 

4 

Allow delay of repair as done in Subpart H 

Is ductwork covered in Subpart H or Gen. Pro v.? 

72 hours repair period for controls is too short 

Requirement for seal inspection gap measurements poses risk to workers because external floating roof 

may not be structurally sound 

Concern over explosion and confined space safety issues in tank inspections 

8 Include provisions for inspections of internal floating roofs already in service at HON compliance date 

Does maximum true vapor pressure mean the vapor pressure of the liquid or the HAP's in the liquid? 

D = Decided W = Working on how to incorporate R = Researching N = Do not agree 

1 0 

co 

ro 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

EMISSIONS AVERAGING 

tt CMA Comments/Questions 

Should EPA allow credit for controls put in place before HON promulgation? How far 

back in time? Should the 33/50 program be credited? 

2 

3 

Should EPA change the compliance period to Annual (so that the use of "Actual" emissions 

estimates is more workable)? 

How long would a potential period of non-compliance be with annual averaging? or 

quarterly averaging? 

How many points would be subject to enforcement actions if an average does not balance? 

Should EPA give a 3% credit if a tank is controlled with a closed vent system that has a 

98% combustion device? 

7 

How should vapor balancing be handled for averaging? 

Should improved operation of a recovery device be credited? 

D = Decided W = Working on how to incorporate R = Researching N = Do not agree 

n 

T l 

CO 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

tt CMA Comments/Questions 

How detailed should the initial notification plan be? Should the initial notification or a 

later submittal be the implementation plan? 

i Can the permit application substitute for the detailed implementation plan? 

3_ 

4 

When should a thorough implementation plan be due? 

When should the implementation plan become enforceable? 

D = Decided W = Working on how to incorporate R = Researching N = Do not agree 

12 

co 
SUMMARY OF CMA COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON HON 

MONITORING, RECORDS, & REPORTS 

tt CMA Comments/Questions 

Should exceedance reports be due less frequently than every quarter? 

Should a source have more than 45 days to report performance test results and 

compliance monitoring results? 

Should periodic reporting requirements be replaced with reports on demand? 

How can the M, R & R burden be reduced without sacrificing enforceability? 

D = Decided W = Working on how to incorporate R = Researching N = Do not agree 

1 3 
P.36 

ATTACHMENT D 
P.37 

EPA/CMA Meeting of June 18. 1992 

As part of investigating the reporting and recordkeeping 

burden, the EPA is seeking input on the reports and records that 

sources may be already doing as part of internal safety, quality, 

preventive maintenance, or other programs. 

The questions listed below are meant to be an indication of 

the kind of information we are interested in. Please feel free 

to provide any information you feel would be helpful. 

Ouestions 

1. Are internal safety, quality, and preventive maintenance 

programs common to most of your company's SOCMI facilities? 

Is one type of program significantly more common than the 

others? Is one program present at 100% of your company's 

SOCMI facilities? 

2. Are there other types of existing records and reports? What 

are these other types of records and reports? Are they 

common to most of your company's SOCMI facilities? 

3. What kind of records and reports are available to prove the 

effectiveness of pollution control equipment (e.g., 

incinerator, condenser, internal floating roof, etc.)? 

Are any parameters monitored as indicators of safe 

operation or to ensure that pollution control equipment 

is properly maintained? 

Are there any routine inspections or maintenance 

actions? By the source? By the pollution control 

equipment vendor? 
P.38 

ATTACHMENT E 
P.39 

REPORTING & RECORDKEEPING IDEAS 

I. Annual Compliance Certification Svstems 

1. Demonstration of internal accountability. 

source prepares very detailed plan/procedures 

identifying employee responsibilities. 

plan/procedures unique to each source. 

initial demonstration required, e.g., audit of plan and 

procedures. 

no mandatory periodic records or reports unless 

specified in plan. 

annual compliance certification (specifics to be 

defined) and spot inspections ensure continued 

compliance. 

2. Industry self-policing 

based on military hardware acquisition system 

. - similar to idea #1 (internal accountability) 

additional requirement of independently operating 

contractor enforcement group - serves as EPA 

enforcement surrogate 

EPA enforcement asks contractor enforcement groups to 

certify and be able to prove/demonstrate compliance 

penalty for deficient contractor enforcement group 

would be severe (e.g., process unit or source shutdown) 

3. Annual performance testing and inspections 

annual performance tests based on routine operating 

conditions as evidenced by records 

no periodic reports required 
P.40 

II. Incentive Svstem 

Applicable to exceedance reports and/or performance test 

reports. 

the following parameters could be varied as part of an 

incentive system: 

frequency of reports 

amount of data included in report 

+ e*g., for an exceedance report, the detail 

level could range from 1) acknowledging an 

exceedance occurred to 2) providing a 

detailed accounting of why it occurred, what 

corrective action was taken, and calculations 

estimating the emissions 

+ e.g., for performance test reports, the 

detail level could range from 

1) acknowledging the test was completed 

successfully to 2) including details about 

the test and the results 

+ e.g., for very bad performers, could require 

source to hard-wire their electronic 

monitoring devices to the enforcement office 

automatic fines after a predetermined number of 

exceedances or failed performance tests 

automatic repeat of performance test after a 

predetermined number of exceedances 

possible starting points for an incentive system... 

start lenient and get more stringent if source's 

performance deteriorates 

start stringent and get lenient as source 

demonstrates good performance 

start in the middle 
P.41 

III. Alternative Compliance Options as Approved by the Permit 

Review Authority or Administrator 

Source could; 

identify monitoring parameters and inspection 

regimen based on existing records and reports 

related to quality, safety, and preventative 

maintenance programs. 

submit them to permit authority for approval as an 

alternative way to comply with HON monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 

would require EPA to gain understanding of quality, 

safety, and preventative maintenance programs 

would require preparation of supplemental materials to 

aid in case-by-case evaluation 

IV. Parameter Monitoring and Inspection Systems (HON Approach) 

Listed below are refinements to the existing approach. 

1. Develop tiered requirements for Group 2 emission points. 

distinguish between those Group 2 points that are truly 

insignificant and those that could become Group 1 

develop appropriate requirements for each subgroup 

2. Simplify initial notification and make a separate 

implementation plan due at a later data if necessary. 

3. Allow more time for report preparation. 

4. Allow more time between reports. 
ATTACHMENT F 
t

- \ 

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

CMA Action Items and CMA responses 

Implementation Plan 

1. CMA will draft language on the revised compliance plan section, 

including the notification, permit application, & alternative 

submittal. 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

The proposed HON would require each source subject to the standard 

to submit an "implementation plan" to the permitting authority within 

120 days of promulgation. The plan is supposed to identify, in great 

detail, the emission points subject to the rule and how the source will 

get each subject point into compliance. CMA maintains that it is both 

unnecessary and essentially impossible to prepare a plan with the 

detail required in the proposal in the time allowed. 

We believe that enforceability of the MACT standard is not a 

sufficient basis for the implementation plan proposed in the draft HON. 

Sources subject to any MACT standard have two statutory obligations -

to comply with the standard by the compliance date and to obtain an 

operating permit. The operating permit application will include the 

same information proposed as part of an implementation plan -

identification of emission points, compliance methods, recordkeeping, 

reporting, and monitoring requirements. 

The timelines laid out in the statute make clear that operating 

permit programs should be in place prior to the HON compliance date. 

Even if the operating permits were delayed, the MACT standard is 

directly enforceable against the source after the compliance deadline. 

The initial implementation plan should be replaced with 

simplified notification requirements. This simplified initial 

notification would include a description of the source and the chemical 

manufacturing units that the source has determined are subject to the 

standard. We believe that such a requirement is sufficient to notify 

the appropriate authority that a subject source exists, and serves to 

trigger the compliance planning process within the source. 

In the unlikely event that the HON becomes enforceable before an 

operating permit application is due, CMA suggests that a source be 

required to submit the equivalent of a compliance plan six months prior 

to the compliance da"tev Th_s~-~wanld: ensure: thai:. th£_regnlatory 

authority has detailed information about the source and the intended 

method of compliance before the standard becomes enforceable. This 

approach would also relieve sources of the excessive burden of hastily 

compiling a plan that will duplicate their permit application. 

2501 M Street. NW. Washington. DC 20037 202-887-1100' Panatax 202-887-1237 Telex 89617 (CMA WSH) 
P.44 

§63.151 Initial Notification and Compliance Plan 

(a) Each owner or operator of a source subject to Subpart 

G that has an initial startup prior to the effective date shall 

notify the Administrator in writing that the source is subject 

to the Subpart. The notification shall be submitted within 120 

days after the effective date of Subpart G and shall include 

the following information: 

(1) The name and address of the owner/operator; 

(2) The address (physical location) of the affected 

source; 

(3) An identification of the standards included in 

Subpart G that are the basis of the notification; 

(4) A brief description of the nature, size, and 

operation of the source; 

(5) An identification of the process units subject 

to Subpart G. 

(b) Each owner or operator of a source subject to Subpart 

G that has not submitted a Title V operating permit application 

at least six months prior to the compliance dates specified in 

§63.100(f) of Subpart F shall develop a compliance plan. The 

compliance plan shall be submitted no later than six months 

prior to the compliance dates specified in §63.100(f) of 

Subpart F. 
P.45 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

1. CMA will get feedback on the "records as necessary" idea from 

member companies, identify positives and negatives, and look at the 

risks of having one week to gather all records. 

Overall, CMA members responded very positively to possibility of 

eliminating periodic reporting and making records available as 

• requested. However, there are details that need to be addressed 

when trying to develop this concept into a workable approach. 

The timing and scope of the request for records should studied. 

Information could be available within one week for time periods 

one month or more prior to the request. For information on data 

within one month, it could take up to one month from the last date 

of the data request due to difficulties in obtaining information 

to provide time to compile recent records and transfer them to a 

central accessible location. 

2. CMA will study the chart on R&R Subparts F & G 

CMA will review impress ions-to-date at the 6/18 mtg. 

3. CMA will suggest alternative times for the existing 30 day lag time 

for reporting and the 120 day period to do a revised test. 

CMA suggests a 90 day lag time for reporting after the end of the 

compliance period. Presently, it takes CMA members 45 to 60 days 

to get the information from a contractor and compile it into a 

formal report. With the increased burden associated with MACT and 

other state and federal regulations, turnaround time is expected 

to increase to 90 days. 

CMA recommends a provision allowing case-by-case extensions to the 

required 120 day period for performing a revised test. 

4. CMA will consider and present alternatives to EPA's proposed R&R 

requirements. 

CMA will present suggestions during the discussion on 6/18. 
Process Vents 

1. CMA presented a scenario whereby a source would do an engineering 

calculatio n t o do a first TRE. If the TRE was much greate r than one, 

the calculatio n would be sufficient . IF the TRE was clos e to one, the 

source would do an actua l test and recalculat e th e TRE. CMA agreed t o 

provide more language on this approach. 

TRE CALCULATIONS 

EPA proposes in §63.115 tha t the owner or operator conduct a test on 

each vent subjec t to Subpart G. CMA believe s tha t the rul e should 

allow a source to use best engineering calculation s when making an 

initia l TRE evaluation . If the engineering calculation s show TRE less 

than a specified value , then the owner or operator would be required to 

conduct testin g to verify the estimates. 

CMA believe s this approach would ensure tha t al l vents which are clos e 

to the control threshold would be subject t o actua l testing . The 

suggested approach would also reliev e sources of conducting expensive 

testin g on vents tha t clearl y have a TRE greate r than one. 

If a vent clearl y has a TRE less than one, CMA believe s tha t the 

source should have the option to declare , based on engineering 

knowledge, tha t the vent has a TRE under one and is subjec t to the 

Subpart G control requirements. This would alleviat e the need for 

expensive testin g on vents tha t obviously must be controlled , and will 

bring the vent under Subpart G coverage. 

§63.115 Process Vent Provisions - test methods and procedures 

for TRE index value determinations. 

(a) TRE index value determinations for each vent subject to 

Subpart G shall be determined using the methods specified in 

parts (b) and (c) of this section, or by using best engineering 

estimates. 

(1) A source tha t utilize s engineering estimates to 

determine TRE index values shall conduct a test as specified in 

parts (b) and (c) of this section if the initia l engineering 

calculation indicates tha t the vent has TRE index value greater 

than 1.0 and less than [a specified value]. 

(2) A source may comply with this section vith no g--^— 

7 mord-feerlng by declaring tha t best engineering knowledge shows 

tha t a vent subject to Subpart G has a TRE index value less 

than one. 

* * * * 

Note : thi s languag e is intende d t o be inserte d a new par t (a) . 

Subsequent part s would be relettere d accordingly . 
P.47 

1.5 CMA should provide an appropriate TRE Group 2 cutoff value for 

testing, along with supporting documentation. 

CMA is currently working on a statistical analysis of the 

sample vents provided in the BID to identify an appropriate 

number, however CMA needs additional, information on stream 

characteristics of the BID vents, such as whether or not they 

are halogenated,in order to define an accurate cutoff 

point. 

2. CMA will review the process vents section and correlate it with the 

revised definition of process vents as discussed in the definitions 

section. 

CMA is satisfied that the revised definition of process 

vents, as developed in the April 14 meeting between CMA and 

EPA, will integrate into the process vents section without 

obstruction.The definition reads as follows: 

Process Vent means a gas stream that is continuously 

discharged from an air oxidation process unit, reactor 

process unit, or distillation operation within a 

chemical manufacturing process that meets all 

applicability criteria in Section 63.100 of this Subpart 

and Section 63.110 of Subpart G. Process vents include 

gas streams that are continuously discharged directly to 

the atmosphere. Process vents exclude relief valve 

discharges and leaks from equipment regulated under 

Subpart H of this Part but include vents from product 

accumulator vessels. 

3. CMA needs to provide information on R&R for Group 2 TREs. 

CMA will provide this information in the future. 

4. CMA needs to provide a procedure for moving from Group 2 to Group 

1. 

CMA will present suggestions during the discussion on 6/18. 

5. CMA needs to provide examples of alternatives to organic monitors 

for group 2 vents, as proposed by CMA during the 4/14 meeting. 

CMA has already provided language addressing allowing 

alternatives to organic monitors, and will present examples 

during the discussion on 6/18. 

6. CMA needs to provide information on switching to a Cl, Br, Fl, 

concentration measurement for halogenated vents, rather than a compound 

concentration measurement. 

CMA will provide information during the meeting on 6/18. 
Intermittent Vents 

CMA believes that the clarifying the definition of process vent 

during the April 14 meeting removed the need for a definition of 

"intermittent vent". The definition reads as follows: 

Process Vent means a gas stream that is continuously 

discharged from an air oxidation process unit, reactor 

process unit, or distillation operation within a 

chemical manufacturing process that meets all 

applicability criteria in Section 63.100 of this Subpart 

and Section 63.110 of Subpart G. Process vents include 

gas streams that are continuously discharged directly to 

the atmosphere. Process vents exclude relief valve 

discharges and leaks from equipment regulated under 

Subpart H of this Part but include vents from product 

accumulator vessels. 
P.49 

Transfer 

1.0 CMA will continue to work on meshing the existing DOT regulations 

with the HON- EPA is concerned that they are not applicable. 

CMA will follow-up on specifics of the DOT regulations for 

discussion on 6/18. 

2.0 CMA needs to look at alternatives to Method 27- EPA is presently 

considering Method 21. 

CMA requests EPA to describe their concerns and how they 

might be addressed by Method 21. 

3.0 CMA needs to decide whether vapor balancing should be an 

exemption, or an alternative which would provide credit under emissions 

averaging. EPA is presently considering both options, or a 

combination. If it is uses as a credit generator, how would it be 

monitored? 

CMA supports vapor balancing as either an exemption or a 

credit generating alternative. If a source selects the credit 

generating alternative, a monitoring scheme should be 

developed with the local permitting authority. 

4.0 CMA needs to explain and justify a "dome device". 

CMA believes that "closed dome loading" is a form of vapor 

balancing. The term is also used to describe the recovery of 

vapors from loading operations for treatment or recycle. 

5.0 CMA needs to provide an appropriate time as a replacement for the 

existing two minute R&R requirement in the existing draft. 

CMA suggests that a 15 minute time interval is appropriate 

for transfer periods of less than three hours. At least one 

record could be required for periods less than 15 minutes. 

6.0 CMA needs to address EPA's concerns about vapor pressures greater 

than the allowed loading pressure? 

CMA needs more information on EPA's concerns and will 

hopefully be able to address them at the meeting. Presently, 

CMA believes that this issue may be an artifact of Method 

27. Method 27 specifies a maximum loading pressure for 

gasoline loading. 
P.50 

Storage 

1. CMA will develop alternative language and alternative inspection 

procedures to address the safety concerns of inspection of floating 

roof tanks. 

EPA has proposed that each storage vessel equipped with a floating 

roof must be visually inspected at various intervals. In order to 

inspect the floating roof, it appears that personnel must actually 

access the roof. This can create a serious safety hazard. 

Sources complying with the HON must be aware that a potential 

hazard exists, and that they must take adequate safety precautions 

when conducting the inspections. This includes complying with 

existing OSHA regulations [Walking and Working Surfaces -- 29 CFR 

§1910, subpart D, proposed revision at 55 Fed. Reg. 13360 (April 

10, 1990) and Confined Space Entry -- proposed at 54 Fed. Reg. 

24080 (June 5, 1989)]. 

CMA is also concerned that unless provisions similar to the 

equipment leaks section -- 'unsafe to monitor valves" -- are 

included in the storage vessel section, personnel may be injured 

attempting to conduct the required inspection. Owners or 

operators must be given the latitude to determine when a potential 

hazard exists and to be exempted from conducting the inspection. 

§63.120 Storage vessel provisions - procedures to determine 

compliance. 

(a) Prior to inspecting a floating roof tank, the owner 

or operator shall ensure that safety precautions are taken by 

personnel accessing the floating roofs, including complying 

with all pertinent OSHA regulations. 

(b) A floating roof tank is exempt from the inspection 

requirements of paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section if: 

(i) The owner or operator determines that a 

floating roof tank is unsafe to inspect because personnel would 

be exposed to a potential hazard as a result of complying with 

paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section; and 

(ii) The owner or operator documents- the potential 

hazard. 

(Insert as new § 63.120(a) & (b). Renumber section 

accordingly.) 
P.51 

2. CMA will need to provide alternatives to rooftop inspection of 

external floaters if there really is a safety concern. 

CMA realizes that rooftop inspections are generally 

acceptable. However, there are circumstances where a rooftop 

inspection is not safe and a a safety exemption should be 

readily available. 

3. CMA will suggest a more appropriate time for a repair period that 

the 72 hours stated in the draft HON. 

CMA suggests a repair period for closed systems that is 

consistent with the time needed to repair an incinerator or 

flare. 

CMA is concerned that normal operations will be severely 

limited if a source cannot raise the level in a storage tank 

for several weeks during the repair period. 

The one time 30 day extension presently allowed in the draft 

regulation should be negotiable with the permitting authority. 

4. CMA will look at words to clarify the credit issue for storage 

tanks. 

The Subpart G definition of Reference Control Technology for 

storage tanks states that for the purposes of emissions averaging, 

closed vent systems are assumed to have the equivalent control 

efficiency as internal and external floating roofs. A 95% control 

level is the assumed efficiency for these technologies. CMA 

believes the definition should make clear that the control 

achieved by a closed vent system in excess of 95% is creditable 

for emissions averaging. 

Closed vent systems (to a control device) clearly are capable of 

achieving greater than 95% control efficiency. This higher level 

of emission control is one of a very few areas where credits may 

be available for emissions averaging. The proposed change to the 

definition would allow sources with a closed vent system to use 

the excess emission control as an emissions averaging credit. 

§63.11 Definitions 

Reference control technology for storage vessels means an 

internal floating roof meeting the specifications of §63.119(b) of this 

Subpart, an external floating roof meeting the specifications of 

§63.119(c) of this Subpart, or a closed vent system to a control device 

meeting-the-spRr.ificatJLoj_3...of-l63..-119C_>Lofr this.. Subpart. For purposes 

of emissions averaging, the emission control in excess of 95% reduction 

of organic HAP emissions obtained in a closed vent system is available 

as an emissions averaging credit. 
P.52 

Emissions Averaging 

1. CMA will try to identify the scope of credits available due to the 

post-promulgation condition in the existing language. CMA will also 

look at the amount of credits available under the 33/50 program. 

CMA member companies had a very difficult time addressing 

this request for information because internal estimates are 

not sufficiently developed at this time to allow 

environmental professionals to estimate the available 

credits. 

3. CMA will discuss how state requirements are to be credited under 

emissions averaging. 

CMA will discuss this during the 6/18 meeting. 
P.53 

ATTACHMENT G 
P.54 

HON REPORTING-CONCEPTUAL OUTLINE 

DRAFT 6/16/92 

PURPOSE: 

DRAFT HON: 

Reduce the reporting requirements in the draft HON 

MACT standards by incorporating a concept of "exception 

reporting". 

Process vents- 1. Initial reports with 

implementation plan or at change. 

2. Performance tests. 

3. TRE calculations (various). 

4. Exceedances- group 1 and 2 under 

TRE of 8 or qtly. 

Storage tanks- 1. Initial reports with implementation 

plan or at effective date. 

2. Exceedances- qtly. 

Transfer- 1. Performance tests. 

NEW CONCEPTS: 

Wastewater2. Exceedances- qtly. 

1. Initial report within 90 days or 

with implementation plan. 

2. Exceedances generally qtly. 

Minimize recordkeeping (separate issue) and move to a 

standardized semiannual reporting of only a tabulation 

of exceedances/deviations. The permit regulations and 

program can and should handle the short term notice 

events, and restrict the semiannual report to providing 

a permanent record of the short term exceedances/ 

deviations (covered by the permit notice process for 

earlier reports) and the other, less serious 

exceedances/deviations (such as operating parameters 

not resulting in excess emissions). 

Initial reports should be consistent in timing spelled 

out in the compliance plan (which is to be submitted 

either as part of the permit application or 

prior to HON compliance, which ever comes first) 

it II .« _ x months 

Any changes in an emissions point from a group 2 to a 

group 1 should be handled as part of the permit change 

requirements. 
P.55 

ATTACHMENT H 
P.56 

COMPLIANCE GRIDLOCK 

Legislative Authority 

* Section 112(i)(3)(A) prevents EPA from extending the 

compliance time for the HON past 3 years after the "effective 

date" of the rule 

* Section 112 (i (3) (B) allows the Administrator or the permitting 

authority to grant a l year compliance extension through the 

issuance of a permit "if such additional period is necessary 

for the installation of controls." 

Regulatory Discretion 

* EPA cannot allow more than 3 years for compliance in the rule 

* Decisions to grant the extra 1 year for compliance must be 

made on a case by case basis through the permitting process 

ttMVRegulatory Options 

* Reduce the Number of Actions required to Comply 

- Stagger promulgation of the HON by: 

- Product processes 

- Kinds of emission points 

- Redefine "Compliance" to be more process oriented 

- Compliance would mean submittal of necessary papers in 

the pursuit of approval to apply controls, not actual 

application of controls 

Klfr-U- &JjfrXy*Xor>t\ Cp-Hpv\S 

* Reduce tne Time taken by the Actions required to Comply 

- Speed the issuance of Construction Permits 

- States have direct authority, not EPA 

- However, EPA could help States Streamline the process: 

- Focus most reviews on emissions increases 

- Develop more Exemptions for simple control 

technology installations 

- Use the Implementation Program to prioritize 

points for construction permit reviews 

Provide Technical Assistance to States, Permitting 

Authorities and Owner/Operators 

- Speed understanding of rule's requirements and what 

constitutes compliance (Applicabilityt Group 1 vs 2) 

- Provide info on control tech. use and effectiveness 

- Something to help with lab/testing needs? 
P.57 

ATTACHMENT I 
P.58 

ATTACHMENT J 
P.59 

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 

Current Draft: 

* Initial Notification = Implementation Program 

* Requirements for points in an Emissions Average: 

1) Describe the points in the intended average, 

including: 

- Point identification 

- Group 1 or Group 2 status for each point 

- Control technology for controlled points 

2) Describe how the average will work, including: 

- Which points will be credit generators 

- Which points will be debit generators 

- How the average will balance 

3) State the intended Monitoring, Recordkeeping & 

Reporting 

- Equal to requirements for Group 1 points that are 

not in an average 

- Plus, whatever else is needed for the emissions 

estimation equations 

* Requirements for points not in an average: 

MO-t 

1) Describe the points A in the intended average, 

including: 

- Point identification 

- Group 1 or Group 2 status for each point 

- Control technology for Group 1 points 

* Requirements for all points (in averages and not): 

1) Implementation Program must be submitted within 120 

days of the rule's "effective date" 

2) Permit-style review of the implementation program 

before the compliance date 

3) Implementation Program will include alternative 

operating scenarios, as appropriate 

4) Implementation Program will be updated in writing if 

points or controls change 

5) Implementation Program will be supplemented if new 

points are added to the source 
P.60 

INITIAL NOTIFICATION & IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 

Alternative Requirements: 

* Initial Notification 

- Due within 120 days of the rule's "effective date" 

- Should include: 

- Name and address of owner/operator 

- Address of the affected source 

- A description of the source's nature, size and 

operation 

- An identification of the process units at that source 

that are subject to Subpart G 

* Implementation Program 

- Due within 18 months of the "effective date" if an operating 

permit application has not yet been submitted for that source 

- Requirements for points in an Emissions Average: 

1) Describe the points in the intended average 

2) Describe how the average will work 

3) State that Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting 

will be: 

- Equal to requirements for Group 1 points 

- Plus, what is needed for emissions estimation 

4) Permit-style review of the implementation program 

before the compliance date 

- Requirements for points not in an average: 

1) Describe the points in the intended average, 

including: 

- Point identification 

- Group 1 or Group 2 status for each point 

- Control technology for Group 1 points 

- Requirements for all points (in averages and not): 

1) Implementation Program will include alternative 

operating scenarios, as appropriate 

2) Implementation Program will be updated in writing if 

points or controls change 

3) Implementation Program will be supplemented if new 

points are added to the source