Date: April 30, 201 1

To: Chemical Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP Project File

From: David Randall

Subject: Minutes for April 28 , 2010

, Conference Call Between the U.S. EPA and

R epresentatives of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (S OCMA) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC)

On April 28 , 2010 , representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their contractor (RTI International ) participated in a conference call with r epresentatives of

the Society of Chemic al Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) . The names and affiliations of the participants are included in Attachment 1. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss issues related to the SOCMA and ACC petition on the chemical manufacturing area source NESHAP.

Issue #1: Applicability based on families of materials

In response to an EPA request during the previous conference call on February 25, 2010, SOCMA/ACC submitted a memorandum on March 23, 2010, with diagr ams illustrating process operations where they think the family of materials concept improperly extends applicability of the CMAS rule. During this conference call, industry representative described each of the examples in more detail. EPA representative s noted that process operations must have essentially identical HAP emission profiles to be included in a family of materials, and many of the industry’s examples would not be considered families because the cited process operations

had different HAP emiss ion profiles. EPA representatives noted that, as in the MON, the primary purpose of the family of materials concept is to ensure that facilities do not improperly break up production into numerous small processes so that uncontrolled batch process vent

em issions fall below the 10,000 lb/yr threshold for control. However, they also noted that they do not expect the family of materials concept to affect many facilities or process units, and they asked that the industry representatives followup after the cal l if they have information to suggest

otherwise. In dustry representatives also requested that EPA clarify the term “essentially

identical HAP emissions profile,” and they noted that the rule would be more straightforward without the family of mat e rials co ncept.

Issue #2 : Management practice requirement for covers on process vessels

Industry representatives noted that the requirement to equip process vessels with a cover or lid that must be in place at all times when the vessel contains HAP does not allow opening for cleaning. EPA representatives indicated that they understand the industry’s concern and areconsidering alternatives. They also requested that the industry representatives submit any

descriptions of cleaning operations that they think might help EPA to clarify and resolve the

issue.

Issue #3: De minimis applicability threshold

Industry representatives indicated that there was widespread support among the SOCMA

and ACC members for the applicability thresholds suggested by SOCMA in comments on the proposed CMAS rule. The EPA representatives acknowledged the comment, by they also noted that the Agency is legally required to develop standards that regulate all sources.

Issue #4: Overlapping requirements in the CMAS and other rules

Given the number of provisions in rule s , i ndustry representatives indicated that the requirement to determine which provisions in the CMAS rule and other applicable rules are most stringent will be very burdensome, and it is also inconsistent with and more burdenso me than MACT rules that specify which rule major sources may follow when two rules apply to the same emission source. They also noted it can be difficult to assess which provision is most stringent, and they requested that EPA include a mechanism for faci lities to present and obtain approval of

their conclusions. EPA representatives noted that the purpose of the provision was to provide facilities with flexibility. In the absence of this provision, facilities would have to comply with all requirements in all applicable rules. This provision allows them the flexibility to identify and comply with only the most stringent requirements. In some cases, that might mean complying only with provisions in one rule to satisfy the requirements in both that rule an d another rule. Moreover, EPA expects that most facilities subject to CMAS will be required to comply only with management practices and that the burden associated with determining which requirements are most stringent should be minimal. EPA representati ves also notes that in some cases all requirements must be complied with because they are separate standards, not overlapping requirements (e.g., PM and opacity standards, or management practice inspections and control requirements).

Issue #5: Requiremen t for direct and proximal inspections

Industry representatives expressed concern that the requirement for direct and proximal inspections could be susceptible to different interpretations. Furthermore, unlike other rules, the CMAS rule does not provide r elief in situations where close inspection would be unsafe. EPA representatives indicated that they recognize the problem and are evaluating ways to alleviate it.

Issue #6: Requirement to conduct inspections while equipment is in service

Industry repre sentatives asked whet her the equipment has to be in HAP service for the inspection or if it would be acceptable to conduct the inspection while the equipment is in VOC service. They also noted that some facilities do not operate in HAP service more than a few days per year. EPA representatives noted that the issue was being reviewed, but they expressed reservations about changes. For example, if the VOC has a lower vapor pressure than the HAP, then leaks might be less likely to be detected. They also re quested feedback with any suggestions for how an alternative inspection program could be implemented that would provide equivalent control.Issue #7: Other issues

Industry representatives asked if EPA had any questions on their concerns regarding requir ements for R&D operations and their suggestions that EPA include a pollution prevention option. There were no questions and no further discussion of these issues.

Issue #8 : Timetable for ruling on the petition

Industry representatives asked if EPA expec ted to announce its decision on whether t o grant the r e quest for reconsideration by May 26. EPA ’s OGC representatives indicated that was not likely

, but they would follow up with the petitioners during the week after this call. Industry representatives a lso noted that their request for an administrative stay is an important element in the petition and they would like to know the time frame for it as well

.Attachment 1 Participants in April 28 , 2010, Conference Call

Industry Representatives

Jamie Conr ad, SOCMA Dan Moss, SOCMA Jim Griffin, ACC Leslie Hulse, ACC Chet Thompson, ACC Seth Levine, Cambrex Bruce Katje, Esco Company Philip Antici, Future Fuel Richard Edwardson, Harrell Industries Jere Ellison, ISP Seth Grimes, PPG Ashland Mike Shatynski , Rhodi a Roy Augustine, Solutia Chuck Cooper

U.S. EPA Representatives Randy McDonald, OAQPS Marcia Mia, OECA Paul Versace, OGC

RTI International (EPA contractor)

David Randall