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 

Representatives of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (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 

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: 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 will 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 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. 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 using equipment and procedures 

that generally are used in R&D activities. For example, they indicated some commercial 

development activity is conducted under open hoods with slightly larger glassware than is 

typically used in bench-scale operations. If such activities remain subject to the rule, they most 

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 also 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 of 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 grant 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 noted 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 representatives 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 Hulse, 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, OGC

RTI International (EPA contractor)

David Randall