MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 31, 2014

SUBJECT: Summary of U.S. EPA Discussions with Industry Representatives to Discuss the 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, Polyether Polyols Production, and Group 

IV Polymers and Resins Risk and Technology Review Proposal

FROM: Nick Parsons, EPA

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize a series of meetings between representatives 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and industry representatives from the 

American Chemistry Council (ACC). The topic of these meetings was the proposed risk and 

technology review of the National Emission Standards for Hazard Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production (PAI) (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM), Polyether 

Polyols Production (PEPO) (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP), and Group IV Polymers and Resins 

(P&R IV) (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJ).

EPA Participants

Jodi Howard, U.S. EPA

Penny Lassiter, U.S. EPA

Nick Parsons, U.S. EPA

Brenda Shine, U.S. EPA

Andrea Siefers, U.S. EPA

Sue Stahle, U.S. EPA

Mike Thrift, U.S. EPA

ACC Participants

Lorraine Gershman, ACC

Leslie Hulse, ACC

Chuck Cooper, Ashland

Mark Allen, BASF

Gary Rabik, Braskem

Liane Platt, Dow

Russell Wozniak, Dow

John Dege, DuPont

Debbie Mulrooney, DuPont

Chris Manley, Eastman

Catherine Ehlhardt, Eli Lilly

Laura Ann Dresser, ExxonMobil

George Graham, ExxonMobil

Derek Reese, ExxonMobil

Ro Sharma, LyondellBasell

Steve Smith, LyondellBasell

Barry Christensen, OxyChem

Fred Fedri, OxyChem

Tom Varner, SABIC

Shari Keller, Shell

Dana Schnobrich, 3M

Karen Marsh, ERM (contractor for ACC)
Dates of Discussions

May 9, 2012

January 13, 2014

Topics of Discussions

The purpose of these meetings was to discuss comments submitted by ACC on the proposed 

pressure relief device (PRD) monitoring requirements for the PAI, PEPO, and P&R IV NESHAP 

(77 FR 1268, January 9, 2012).

ACC representatives presented their concerns with the proposed PRD monitoring requirements, 

in which the EPA had proposed to require facilities to install release indicators on all PRDs in 

organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) service that release to the atmosphere. The key concern 

for industry was that this would require significant economical and technical challenges. In 

particular, industry cited significantly higher costs for installation and operation than estimated 

by the EPA, as well as numerous safety and reliability concerns with the installation and 

operation of the release indicators. Industry suggested that the EPA revise the monitoring 

requirements so that facilities would be able to use existing parameter monitoring systems that 

would be able to indicate when a pressure release occurs from a PRD.

ACC members also expressed concern about whether they would have to shut down their 

processes to repair PRDs with leaks greater than 500 ppm. Industry believed that they should still 

be able to use the delay of repair provisions in the existing rules so that a process shutdown 

would not be required in the event of a prolonged leak from a PRD. They also objected to the use 

of the term “violation” in the PRD monitoring requirements, as most companies have policies 

against operating in knowing violation of a standard. Specifically, the EPA proposed that a 

pressure release to the atmosphere from a PRD in organic HAP service would be a violation of 

the rule. However, industry explained that they view a PRD as a safety device, and that a small 

emissions release from a PRD relieving overpressure in a process unit was better than a large 

emissions release from a damaged process unit.

Finally, industry disagreed with the proposed requirement to monitor all PRDs regardless of 

whether they are in gas/vapor or liquid service. Members argued that PRDs in liquid service 

should be exempt from the PRD monitoring requirements because they are typically caused by 

thermal expansion within a line and are small in comparison to gas/vapor PRDs. They also 

claimed that many of these PRDs in liquid service are located in remote locations, such as tank 

farms, and that it would be expensive to install and wire monitors or parameter monitoring 

systems to these PRDs. Industry also requested that PRDs that release to a sewer system be 

exempted from the PRD monitoring requirement, similar to those PRDs that release to a control 

device or process.