Date: April 30, 2011

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 

Representatives of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA) 

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 representatives of 

the Society of Chemical 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 diagrams 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 representatives 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 emission 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 

emissions 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 call if they have information to suggest 

otherwise. Industry 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 materials concept.

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 are 
considering 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 rules, industry 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 burdensome 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 facilities 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 and 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 representatives 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: Requirement 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 relief 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 representatives asked whether 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 requested 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 

requirements 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 expected to announce its decision on whether to

grant the request 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 also 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 Conrad, 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, Rhodia

Roy Augustine, Solutia

Chuck Cooper

U.S. EPA Representatives

Randy McDonald, OAQPS

Marcia Mia, OECA

Paul Versace, OGC

RTI International (EPA contractor)

David Randall