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

A ndrea 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, OxyChe m 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

p articular, 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 EP A 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 t o 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 prol onged leak from a PRD. They also objected to the use of the term “violation” in the PRD monitoring requirements, as m ost 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

emission s 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 ta nk 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 tha t release to a control device or process.