Date: December 30, 2010

To: Chemical Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP Project File

From: David Randall

Subject: Minutes for February 25, 2010

, Conference Call Between the U.S. EPA and

R epresentatives of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affilia tes (SOCMA) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC)

On February 25, 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 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 pe tition on the chemical manufacturing area source NESHAP.

Issue #1: Requirement for covers on process vessels

Industry representatives expressed concern that the requirements in the final rule (i.e., that a cover or lid must be in place at all times when the vessel contains HAP) do not appear to provide any allowance for opening vessels for maintenance or for safety, and cleaning cannot remove all traces of HAP. They suggested that requiring covers when the vessels are “in use”, as in the proposed rule, is a more workable approach. An alternative suggestion was to require covers except when a vessel is “empty”, but others expressed concern that it would be difficult to define “empty” quantitatively. EPA representatives indicated that the terminology wil l be

reviewed and clarified.

Issue #2: Applicability based on families of materials

Industry representatives indicated that it appears the only purpose of the family of materials concept is to extend the scope of the rule to include equipment that is not used in production of a material that involves Table 1 urban HAP but is sometimes configured in a process with other equipment that is used in such processes. EPA representatives noted that, as in the MON, the primary purpose of the family of materials c oncept 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. EPA representatives also requested that SOCMA and ACC provide some practical examples of situations where they see problems with the family of materials concept. SOCMA and ACC agreed to send diagrams of real world examples to EPA.Issue #3: Applicability for commercial operations that use R&D equipment and procedures

Industry representatives expressed concerns about certain commercial development activity being subject to the rule. They noted that some commercial development operations, particularly for pharmaceutical company clients, are conducted us ing equipment and procedures that generally are used in R&D activities. For example, they indicated some commercial development act ivity is conducted under open hoods with slightly larger glassware than is typically used in bench

- scale operations. If suc h activities remain subject to the rule , they mos t likely would be subject to the management practice requirements , but the industry representatives noted that it is not clear how they would demonstrate compliance with LDAR inspection requirements. They a lso noted that although a customer is paying to have the work done, in many such commercial development cases the customer is paying for demonstration of a concept or process, not for a certain mass of product. However, the customer also takes ownership o f any product produced. Generally they then conduct their own tests to determine if it meets their specifications.

Issue #4: Timetable for ruling on the petition

SOCMA representatives asked when EPA expected to provide a decision on whether or

not to gr ant the petition and the stay request. EPA representatives indicated that they would get

back to SOCMA and ACC with that information at a later date.

Issue #5: Procedures for dealing with issues that are not part of the petition

ACC representatives note d that since promulgation industry had asked EPA for clarification or interpretation of a number of provisions in the final rule. Answers were provided informally, and during this call ACC representatives asked how the answers to those questions

would be formally documented. EPA representatives indicated that industry would have to make formal requests for applicability determinations, but general guidance could likely be addressed in email. Specific issues would need to be reviewed by OGC. ACC represen tatives indicated they would caucus with members and get back to EPA with any specific questions.Attachment 1 Participants in February 25, 2010, Conference Call

Industry Representatives Jamie Conrad, SOCMA Dan Moss, SOCMA Jim Griffin, ACC

Leslie Huls e, ACC Jere Ellison, ISP Seth Levine, Cambrex Bill Turetsky, ISP

Steve Poorman , Fuji Film Mike Shatynski , Rhodia Henry Balikov, TLI Solutions, Inc. Philip Antici , Future Fuel

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

RTI International (EPA contractor)

David Randall