p. 1 

# OAR Box 1875 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 47 ) ll-E-6 5 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:47AM

Sheet 47 of 86P. 2 

# A-90-1 9 ll-E-6 5 SUMMAR Y O F TELECONFERENC E Date : Octobe r 6 , 199 2 Subject : Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Monitorin g an d 'Recordkeeping Issue s o n th e Hazardou s Organi c NESHA P (HON ) Attendees : Lydi a Wegman , Deput yDirecto r o f th e Offic e o f Ai r

Qualit yPlannin g an d Standards , EPA Bruc e Jordan , Directo r o f th e Emission s Standard s Division , EP A Daphn e McMurrer , Emission s Standard s Division , EPA Ja n Meyer , Emission s Standard s Division , EPA Ric h Biondi , Deput yDirecto r o f th e Stationary Sourc e Complianc e Division , EP A Mami e Miller , StationarySourc e Complianc e Division , EPA Scot t Throw , StationarySourc e Complianc e Division , EP A Jan e Engert , StationarySourc e Complianc e Division , EP A Charle s Garlow , Ai r Enforcemen t Division , EP A Richar d Sigman , Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Te d Cromwell , Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Kath yBailey , Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Annett e Stanley , Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Jo e Hovias , Unio n Carbid e Bria n Taranto , Exxo n Chemica l Chuc k Malloch , Monsant o Joh n Dege , DuPon t Jac k McClure , Shel l Attache d ar e thre e document s discusse d a t thi s meeting . Th e firs t i s a not e fro mDaphn e McMurrer , o f EPA , t o Annett e Stanley , o f CMA . Th e not e include s draf t preambl e languag e o n alternativ e recordkeepin g requirements . A t th e meeting , CM Aindicate d tha t the yha d no t ye t ha d sufficien t tim e t o revie w th e draf t preambl e language , an

d woul d nee d severa l mor e day s t o comment . Ther e wa s n o furthe r discussio n o f recordkeepin g a t thi s meeting . Th e secon

d attachmen t i s a handou t provide d b yCM Ai n respons e t o a reques t fro

m EPAa t thei r Septembe r 29 , 199 2 meeting . Thi s handou t include s answer s t o question s EP Apose d regardin g monitorin g o f parameter s use d t o gaug e th e operatio n o f contro l devices . Mos t o f th e meetin g wa s spen t discussin g thi s handout . Specifically , CM

Aexplaine d th e example s o f event s tha t woul d caus e excursion s beyon

d permitte d paramete r range s include d i n th e tabl e i n thei r handout . I n addition , th e grou p discusse d som e o f th e idea s i n th e CM

Ahandout . O f particula r interes t wa s th e ide a o f havin g al l th e monitorin g result s fro ma 24-hou r perio d considere d togethe r i f value s beyond th e permitte d rang e wer e recorded . Thi s woul d addres s th e fac t tha t source s canno t alway s tak e action s t oP. 3



### correc t whateve r conditio n i s creatin g th e monitorin g excursio n immediately , bu t woul d allo w th e sourc e n o mor e tha n 24-hour s befor e anothe r excursio n wa s recorded . Afte r th e discussion , EP A agree d t o prepar e a draf t systemo f complianc e wit h th e monitorin g provision s o f th e HON . Th e thir d attachmen t i s a calculatio n EP Aprepare d t o illustrat e th e concep t o f allowin g som e "excused " period s o f monitorin g value s beyon d certai n pre-se t ranges . 3 Attachment sP. 4 (\tfpuoiA*.e"Jr

.


### Not e t o Annett e Stanle y 

## OC T « 5 199 2 Fro mDaphn e McMurre r v 

### Thi s i s draf t languag e tha t EPAi s considerin g fo r inclusio n i n th e HO

Npreambl e t o addres s th e CM Aissu e o n recordkeepin g wit h certai n compute r systems . Pleas e ge t i t ou t t o you r member s i n tim e fo r tomorrow' s cal l a t 10:00 . I assum e yo u wil l b e calling i n t o Lydi a Wegman' s numbe r lik e yo u di d las t week . I f no t pleas e cal l m e t o tal k logistic s ASAP .

HO N Recordkeepin

g T o b e inserte d int o th e R& R Sectio n Th e propose d rul e require s source s t o kee p readil yaccessibl e record s o f monitore d parameters . Fo r thos e contro l device s tha t mus t b e monitore d continuously , record s mus t includ e a t leas t on e monitore d valu e fo r ever y1 5 minute s o f operation . Thes e monitorin g record s mus t b e maintaine d fo r 5 years . Industry source s hav e informe d EP Atha t som e existin g compute r controlle d processe s hav e monitorin g system s tha t onl ystor e dat a tha t i s outsid e som e predetermine d rang e o f acceptabl e values . Fo r example , thes e system s coul d b e se t t o recor d an d stor e al l monitore d value s outsid e th e paramete r range s establishe d b yth e sourc e t o represen t prope r operatio n an d maintenanc e o f a contro l device . Suc h a computerize d system , i f wel l designe d an d properl y operated , coul d accuratel yrecor d al l value s outsid e th e establishe d range . Record s fro m suc h a syste mprovid e assuranc e t o th e sourc e tha t th e monitore d parameter s ar e withi n th e permitte dP. 5



### rang e a t an

ytim e perio d fo r whic h a recor d i s no t mad e o r stored . A t thi s time , EPAdoe s no t hav e sufficien t dat a abou t thes e system s t o ensur e tha t the yar e accuratel yan d reliabl yreflec t th e source' s continue d compliance . Therefore , EPAha s no t include d the ma s a recordkeepin g optio n i n th e propose d rule . Instead , EP A i s seeking commen t o n whethe r an d ho w thes e system s shoul d b e allowe d fo r complianc e wit h th e recordkeepin g requirement s i n th e HON . Specifically , EP Ai s intereste d in : wha t criteri a ar e use d t o determin e th e value s tha t ar e store d b ythes e existin g monitorin g systems ; ho w th e validit yo f th e dat a i s verified ; th e frequenc yo f calibratio n fo r thi s typ e o f system ; ho w operator s ensur e th e accurac yo f th e result s fro m thes e existin g systems ; an d wha t type s o f processe s o r control s ar e currentl ybein g monitore d wit h thes e systems . I n addition , EP Ai s seeking commen t o n ho w th e requirement s allowin g th e us e o f thes e system s t o compl ywit h th e HO Nmigh t b e structured . Finally , EP Ai s seekin g commen t o n th e concep t o f determinin g complianc e base d o n dat a tha t d o no t includ e value s t o represen t th e entir e complianc e perio d (i.e. , absenc e o f dat a indicating a violatio n woul d constitut e evidenc e o f compliance) .P R i

HO N Complianc e an

d Operating Parameters Issues : 1 ) Wha

t shoul d b e defined as complianc e wit h th e HON? CM A RESPONSE :

HO N woul d stat e tha tcomplianc

e is generall

y define d a s the installation an

d proper operation an

d maintenanc

e o f reference contro l technolog y (o r equivalentas approve d b y EPA) . Contro

l device efficiencies ar e nominal , conservative number s sett o represen

treasonabl e ranges for typica l devices unde

r "representative conditions " as opposed t o numerica

l limit s for performance . Eac

h sourc e should hav

e flexibilit y t o negotiat

e appropriat

e ranges fo

r operatin g parameter

s i n it s permit. However , appropriat e defaul trange s should b e include d i n th e rule , no ti n guidance . 2 ) Should anumbe

r o f parameter s monitoring excursion s b e excusable ? CM A RESPONSE :

Yes . The preamble t o th e HO N would stat

e tha tdeviation fro

m operatin g parameter

s does no tnecessarily mea

n noncompliance . 3 ) I f so . ho w should th e syste

mo f excusabl e paramete

r excursion s b e structured ? CM A RESPONSE :

Som e numbe r o f deviation s outsid e the norma l paramete

r range would no

t constitut e a violation . Fo

r details , see answe

r t o question 3(c) . Backgroun d EP A considering di e us e o

f paramete r monitoring a s a

n indicato r o f prope r operatio n and maintenanc e an d allowing som e numbe r ("x" ) o f excursion s beyon

d Ui e source' s pre-set paramete r boundary . Complianc e would b e defined a s havin g fewe r tha n "x " excursion s i

n the relevan

t monitoring period . Currently , th

e HON' s monitorin

g provision s consis t

of : (1 ) equipmen

t inspection s (e.g. . by-pas s lines , close d ven t systems) ; (2) paramete

r monitorin g o f vapo r contro l device s (e.g. , temperatur e monitoring i

n a n incinerator) ; an d (3 ) "wor k practice " provision s fo

r certai n type s of

carbo n absorbers . Regardin g #2 paramete

r monitoring : Ther

e i s som e variatio n amon

g the kind s o

f points , but , i

n general , di e monitoring dat aar e averaged ove

r 3-hou r periods .P. 7

CM A Addition :

• HO N i s base d o n installatio n an d prope r operatio n o f referenc e contro l technology . Specifie d parameter s t o b e monitore d ar e indicators , bu tno ta direc tmeasur e o f syste m performance . Eve n a wel l develope d an d operate d syste m wil l no tmee tsyste m requirement s 100 % o f

th e time . Fo r thes e reasons , i ti s importan tno tt o hav e eac h deviatio n fro m specifie d monitorin g parameter s b e a violation . Ouestion s 1 . Genera

l a . I n a scenari o wher

e source' s se tthei r ow n parameter ranges , EP A mustbetter understan d

- I n whic h case s ar

e excursion s likel y t

o happe n (certai n kind s o f

points o r kind s o f devices)? ; CM A Response : Excursion s happe n fo r a numbe r o f reasons , som e associate d wit h proces s operatin g variables , som e du e t o maintenanc e needs , som e beyon d th e physica l contro l o f

th e source .

- wha teffort s ar e neede d t

o preventexcursions? ; CMA Response : Som e redundanc y ca n b e buil ti n t o eliminat e som e excursions , bu tgenerall y thi s i s o f limite d value . Wher e plant s us e compute r control , som e electroni c troubl e shootin g befor e reachin g se tpoint s ca n b e used , bu tonly if th e caus e o f th e excursio n lend s itsel f t o quic k fix . Preventiv e maintenanc e helps , bu tdoe s no tguarante e n o excursions .

- wha ti s neede d t

o sto p on-goin g excursions? ; CM A Response : Se e attache d tabl e fo r example s -ho w lon g shoul d i

ttak e t o sto p a n excursion ? CM A Response : Se e attache d tabl e fo r example s b . EP A need s CM

A t o identif y cause s for excursion s outsid e di e paramete r boundarie s ma

ta sourc e woul d se

tfo r themselve s i n th e permit , such as :

- operating variations ? -control devic e "malfunctions "P. 8

-others ? 

### Se c attache d tahl e Scope a . Should paramete

r monitorin g fo r Grou p 2 point s b e treate d differentl y tha n monitoring o

f device s controllin g Grou

p 1 points ?

- Fo r example , vent s maintainin

g aTR E > 1 wit h recover y o r facilitie s tha

t mee t facility-wid

e tota l wast e quantit y provision s CM A Response : I n general , ther

e should be virtuall

y n o monitoring requirement s fo r Grou p 2 vents . Changes i n parameter

s monitore

d o n Grou p 2 proces s vent

s ar e onl y a n indication tha

tthe TR E ma y nee d t o be recalculated . I

n thi s case , th e onl

y violatio n thatca

n occu r i s i

f th e sourc e fail s t o recalculat

e the TR E whe n monitore

d dat a indicate s a nee

d t o do so . Ther e shoul d b e no monitorin

g requirement

s fo r Grou

p 2 point s fo r tanks , transfer operations an

d wastewater . b . Should di e syste

mo f excused period s be used only fo r continuou s paramete

r monitoring provisions ? CM A Response : Certainly , thi s mosteasily applie s t o parameter monitoring . Application t o inspections o r wor k practice monitoring i

s appropriate , bu

ti s certainly mor

e difficultt

o define . W

e will continue t o thin k abou tthi s issu e an d provid e additiona

l comment

s i n the future . 3 . Numbe

r and duratio n o

f excuse d periods : a . Wha t unit s o f tim e should be use

d t o defin e excuse d periods ?

- On e 3-hou r averag e

- One operating da

y -Specif y b y poin t an d contro l devic e used (whateve r di e monitoring frequenc

y o f ma t device ) CM A Response :

- A 2 4 hour period o

f operation Th e HO N standar d should b

e base d o n a maximu

m o f 1 exceedance per da

y pe r point. Thi s mean s thatn o matter ho

w lon g th e exceedanc

e ma y las tdurin g tha

tday , i twoul d trigge r onl y one deviation . Excuse

d period s should correlat

e wit h thi s sinc e i tma

y take severa

l hour s t o achieve correction onc

e a deviation occurs even fo r the simpl e cases .P. 9

b . Ho w should th

e excuse d period s be allocated ? pe r contro l devic e -pe r proces s uni

t -pe r plan t -b y numbe r an d typ e o

f contro l devic e (di e ite

mUia t mus t b e monitored ) CM A Response : Shoul d b e determined pe

r control device . Reflect s tha tcontrol device is basis fo r compliance . c . Ho w ca n EP A determine di e numbe

r o f excused excursion s Uia

t equat e t o prope r operatio n an d maintenance ? CM A Response : This should b

e considered as a floor question base d o n dat a fro m controlle d sources . I n th e absenc e o f sufficien tdata , CM

A believes tha

ta leve l o f 6 deviations/reportin g perio d i s appropriate . Significan tadditiona

l dat a will b e availabl e whe

n ne w systems ar e o n line . Ne w dat a ma y b e a basi s fo

r adjusting th e number

s a tthattime . I

n addition , investigation s o

f deviations (Se

e 4A) should produc

e additiona

l information . 4 . I f awor k practic e approach to di e paramete r monitoring requirement s i s to be developed :
a. . Wha t are appropriat

e follow-u p actions ? CM A Response : Fo r ever y initia l deviatio n (including excuse d deviations ) initia

l follow u p would b e investigation an

d documentation o

f cause an d responses . For multipl e deviation s traced t o th e sam e cause , the source would hav e t o develop and implemen

ta n corrective action plan . b . Shoul d di e require d follow-u

p action s be liste d specificall y o r generically ? CM A Response : Liste d generically in HON . Specific s should onl

y be included i

n the corrective action plan , permi t c . I n wha t tim e mus t Ui e action s be completed ? CM A Response : Reasonabl e time a s developed wit

h permittin

g authority .Deviations : Additiona l Informatio n

Example s o f

Possibl e Excursio n Cause(a )
1 ) Emissio n Contro l Devic e upset 2 ) Proces s Unit Upse l 3 ) Statistica l Variabilit y 4 ) Instrument Problem s 5 ) Contro l Valv e Problem s 6 ) Extrem e Envir . Condition s 7 ) Catalys t Poi.sonin g Tim e o f Excursio n

Short
Med
Shor t
Shor t
Shor t
Lon g
Lon g Frequency o f occurenc e (b )

Frequent * Frequen t Dependen to n se tparameter Frequen t
Me d
Rar e
Rar e Effort s Neede d t o preven t(c ) o r minimiz e

P M
D.PM.M O
D
PM. D
P M

PM.MO Correctiv e Actio n (d )

M . EC . P C SS M SS M
W
M.E C M£C,SS M
W , P C
P S Lengt h o f Tim e t o Sto p

Shor t
Shor t
Shor t
Shor t
Shor t
Med - Lon g
Me d8)

Of f Spec . Fue l 9 ) Coolin g Wate r Contaminatio n 10 ) Vendo r Error/ Miscalculatio n 11 ) Huma n Erro r Me d
Me d
Lon g
Shor t Me d M O

Rar e
Rare * Frequen t M O
D SS M
M- W
P C
M O Shor t
Me d
Lon g
Shor t Tim e o f excursio n - Shor t

= < 1 Day , Me d = 1-

2 Days , Lon g = 2 Day s o r Mor e Frequenc y o f

occurenc e - Frequen t

= Severa l X/Yr , Me d = IX/Yr . Rar e = I X i n severa l year s Effort s neede d t o preven to r minimize/Correctiv e Action: - P M = Preventiv e Maintenance . D = Design , M O = Monitoring , M = Maintenance . P S = Proces s Shutdow n & Majo r

Maintenance , P C = Permi t Change . W = Wail . E C = Equipmen t Change , SS M = Startup , shutdow n & Malfunctio n Plan . T = Trainin g Lengt h o f

tim e t o sto p - Shor t

= < 1 Day , Me d = < 1 Week , Lon g =-Severa l Week s o r Chang e in Standar d neede d a ) Thes e example s ar e no t "malfunctions " an d woul d generall y impac t monitore d syste mparameter s suc h a s temperatur e o r flow , bu t woul d no t

necessaril y resul t i n reductio n i n contro l devic e performance . Th e inten t woul d b e t o continu e operatio n (wid i correction s a s necessary ) rathe r tha n goin g throug h ashut
down-fix-startu p cycle . b) . Represen t

condition s afte r

system s complet e initia l start-u p an d reach equilibriu moperatin g condiUons . I n case s identifie d b y * deviation s wil l b e mor e frequen t durin g earl y operation . c ) Doe s no t

impl y ma

t 100 % preventio n alway s i s possible . d ) Appropriat e correctiv e action s t o stop .Additiona l Information o n specifi c example s 1 ) Operatin g conditio n o f emissio n contro l devic e whic h result s i n adeviatio n i

n monitore d parameter . Deviatio n doe s no t necessarily resul

t i n significant o r lon g ter mreduction i

n systemperformance . Example s would be : Incinerator

- mechanica

l o r electrica l componen

t trip , thermocoupl e failure, . variaUo n i n fee d fro mcombine d proces s streams ; Scrubber
- temporar

y plu g flo w variation s boiler/proces s heater

- thermocoupl e failure , proces s hea t or stea mrequirement

change , combustion ai r

trip ; stea mstrippe r - flo w variations , phase d organic s i n feed , monito

r failure ; condense r - temporar

y fouling , flo

w variation , wate

r contamination , high cooling wate r temperature , freezing . 2 ) Example s o

f proces s uni t

upset s whic

h coul d caus e contro l devic e operatin g paramete r variabilit y includ e of f specificatio n feed , minor

equipmen t problem s (pum

p trip) , ra w materia l flo w o r qualit y changes . 3 ) System s ar

e usuall y designed fo

r certai n limit s o

f operatio n (95 % conditions) . CondiUon s whic h fal l outside dies e desig n parameter s coul d caus e operaun g paramete

r deviations . Statistica

l variabilit y als o cover s rando

mdeviation s i

n devic e paramete

r reading s which ar e otherwis e unexplained . 4 ) Instrumen

t problem s include bot

h a ) instrument s monitorin g syste mparameter s an d b ) instrument s whic h contro l processes . Ke

y area s ar e sampl e syste mproblem s suc

h a s plugging , pum

p failure , air

line leaks , electrica

l problems , failur

e of recorder s to record , etc . 5 ) Contro l valv e problem s include item s such a s leak y pneumaU

c drivers , electroni c failures , corrosion , an d stickin g valves . 6 ) Extrem

e environmenta

l condition s include s unusually lo w temperatur

e (instrumen

t air/contro l syste

mfreezing) , extremely heav y rainfall (high flow , low temperatur

e t o strippers) , hig

h coolin g wate

r temperature . 7 ) Poisonin g o

f catalys t i n manufacturin g unit

fro mfee d contamination . Als o catalys t poisonin g in catalyti c combustio n device . 8 ) Fuel t o contro l devic e ha s temporar y deviatio n i

n heatin g valu e o r

content . Fuel s ar e generally supplie d b y externa l vendor s an d ma

y hav e variation s i n Bt u content , composition , or impuritie s yieldin g temperatur e deviations . 9 ) Coolin g wate

r contaminatio n ma

y tak e di e for mo f organic , sediments , pum

p o r treatmen t (screening ) problems , o

r biologica l fouling . 10 ) Vendo

r error ma y result fro mattempt s t o design t o ver y stringen t complex standard s o n alarg e numbe r o f emission s point s within limite d design lime . Typica

l problem s include thos e i

n measuremen

t systems , material s o

f constructio n an d impact s o f multipl e stream s into contro l devices .P.1 3



# HO N COMPLIANCE ISSUE S Issue : Ho w man y excursion s shoul d b e "allowed" ?

• Example wit

h 1% o f operating time allowed t o b e i n excursions

• Assume : (1 ) Processe s ru n 36 5 days/yr ; (2 ) Processe

s ru n 2 4 hours/day ; s o (3) Monitor

s ru n 876 0 hours/yr . (4 ) Thus , there ar

e 292 0 monitorin g periods pe r year (3 - hour) . (5) 1 % o f annua l monitored period s = 29. 2 monitore d periods per year . (6 ) 1% o

f quarterl y monitored period s = 7. 3 monitored periods/quarter .

• Could "allow " o r "excuse " 7 monitored periods/quarter .

• Could "allow " o r "excuse " 1 % o f monitored periods/quarter . Woul d link-up wit

h th e semi-annua

l t o quarterly reporting requirement .

• Eithe r optio n above would allow no mor e tha n 2 1 hours/quarte r o f excursions . Statin g requiremen

tas a % coul d reduce th e number o f hours/quarte r i n "excused " excursions .