OAR Box 1875 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

20) ll-E-38 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/1/2008 11:12:45 AM Sheet 20 of 86 

P.1 
P.2 

MEETING SUMMARY 

A-90-19 

ll-E-38 

f

 V""lMi': •':' 

DATE: March 11, 1992 

LOCATION: Durham, North Carolina | £PA Al 

SUBJECT: API Questions Concerning Draft HON Regulation 

DEC 1 a iy& 

This document summarizes the meeting with the American 

Petroleum Institute (API) held March 11, 1992, at the Mutual Life 

Building in Durham, North Carolina. A list of participants is 

presented in Attachment A. The discussion centered on the 

hazardous organic national emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP), commonly referred to as the HON, and was 

organized into seven sections: Overview of the Regulation, 

Wastewater, Transfer Operations, Storage Vessels, Emissions 

Averaging, Process Vents, and Reporting and Recordkeeping. The 

topics for discussion were outlined in the meeting agenda 

(Attachment B). 

1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE REGULATION 

Ms. Daphne McMurrer, of the Standards Development Branch 

(SDB), began the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

presentations by giving a general introduction to the HON 

regulation and by providing an overview of Subparts F, G, and H. 

She indicated that Subpart F contains the applicability and 

general requirements; Subpart G contains the provisions for 

process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, wastewater 

collection and treatment operations, and emissions averaging; and 

Subpart H contains provisions for equipment leaks agreed upon by 

a regulatory negotiation committee (56 FR 9315; March 6, 1991). 

Ms. McMurrer also went over specific areas in which the EPA is 

requesting public comment. The handouts for her presentation are 

in Attachment C 

MCH/076 

meeting.sum 
P.3 

Applicability of the HON was discussed. In attempt to 

clarify the definition of a major source, an API representative 

asked how methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and benzene, toluene, 

and xylene (BTX) process units at a petroleum refinery would be 

considered if the units themselves do not exceed the Clean Air 

Act Amendment's 10/25 tons per year major source threshold for 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions? The EPA responded that 

a major source has been defined using the terminology "contiguous 

area under common control" and, as such, is based on the 

cumulative emission contributions of individual process units at 

the source. Consequently, all the potential emission points at a 

source are considered together to determine if a source is a 

major source. 

An API representative then inquired how the HON would affect 

the loading of benzene. The EPA said the scope of the HON would 

cover the manufacture of benzene, however, it would not cover the 

loading of benzene at independent, bulk terminals. If a source 

manufactures some MTBE for gasoline, but also imports most of its 

supply from other locations, only the tanks storing MTBE that was 

made on-site would be covered by the HON. 

An API representative asked how a source owner should 

determine if a process unit would be covered by the HON. The EPA 

responded that the owner should first assess whether the units 

under consideration are defined as synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing industry (SOCMI) units, and then evaluate whether 

or not they produce or use HAP's. At major sources, all SOCMI 

process units that produce or use HAP's are subject to the HON. 

2.0 WASTEWATER 

Ms. Debbie Stackhouse, of the SDB, summarized the wastewater 

provisions of the HON and referred to the handout in 

Attachment C. She also noted that revisions to Tables 8 and 9 in 

MCH/076 

-••ting.sum 
P.4 

Attachment C are underway to account for corrections to some 

Henry's Law constants. 

An API representative asked how the point of generation 

would be determined for a process in which a steam stripper is 

integral to a downstream operation. The EPA said that steam 

strippers have not historically been considered part of the 

production process. However, the EPA asked API to provide 

specific examples in which the steam stripper is integral to a 

downstream process for consideration. 

An API representative said biological treatment 

(bio-treatment) units seemed to be considered differently under 

the HON and the benzene NESHAP. He added that a removal 

efficiency of 85 percent is presumed in the benzene NESHAP, while 

a 99 percent removal efficiency is required for the HON. The 

representative noted that these removal efficiencies do not 

appear consistent, and such an inconsistency would complicate a 

refinery's strategies for complying with the benzene NESHAP and 

the HON. 

The EPA responded that the evaluation of bio-treatment as a 

control technology was consistent for both rules, and that 

bio-treatment could be used to comply with both rules. In the 

HON, the specific percent removal required is based on a weighted 

percent of removal of all HAP compounds, in addition to benzene. 

Also, the EPA noted that the HON does not require 99 percent 

removal for all HAP's in the stream, only the most volatile. 

Lower removal efficiencies are required for less volatile 

compounds. Specific information relating to removal of volatile 

organics is noted in the proposed Method 304 accompanying the HON 

package. 

An API representative asked why an emissions reduction level 

of 87 percent was selected rather than 77 percent. The EPA 

responded that many optional emission reduction levels were 

examined for wastewater. Based upon the flow rate, 

concentration, emissions, and cost information in the HON data 

MCH/076 

meeting.sum 3 
P.5 

base, 87 percent was selected as the level for the control 

requirements in the draft proposed standard for wastewater. 

An API representative pointed out that on page 126 of the 

draft preamble, an incremental cost for the control of the 

77 percent level to the 87 percent level appears far too low an 

increase (approximately 15 percent) compared to the increase in 

volume controlled (approximately 40 percent). The EPA said there 

may be a typographical error in the draft preamble. However, the 

impacts for each control level appear correct. The EPA committed 

to examining, and if necessary, correcting the package. 

An EPA representative pointed out that a reference to a 

90-day period for reporting which wastewater portions of the 

facility are subject to the HON should be revised to read 

120 days and should be included with the implementation plan. 

The EPA also took this opportunity to explain that the 

implementation plan is not a binding document and a facility may 

work with the EPA Region on the plan. In response to an API 

question, the EPA noted that the implementation plan is not 

intended for public comment; however, the public may have access 

to the parts of the plan that have not been claimed confidential. 

The EPA plans to distribute supplemental guidance which should 

clarify the provisions for the implementation plan along with the 

proposal package. 

Ms. Penny Lassiter, of the Chemicals and Petroleum Branch 

(CPB), illustrated several of the HON wastewater provisions and 

treatment options by presenting three case studies, one for a new 

source and two for existing sources. The case study handout is 

presented in Attachment D. 

During review of the case study the EPA explained the 

process unit alternative treatment standard and the facility-wide 

loading option. With the process unit alternative treatment 

standard, streams that cannot be treated down to 10 parts per 

million by weight (ppmw), can be recycled to a process, sent to a 

biotreatment unit, or treated further with a steam stripper. 

MCH/076 

meeting.sum 4 
P.6 

With the facility-wide loading option, only Group 1 streams that 

are not treated in accordance with any of the treatment options 

are summed to determine if the facility meets the 1 megagram per 

year loading cut-off. Streams that are not counted include 

Group 2 streams and Group l streams that have been treated by any 

of the optional methods. 

An API representative asked if the calculation in Case Study 

Number 2 for the 99 percent removal was based on all the streams 

controlled. The EPA responded that Calculation Number 2 is an 

example of the required mass removal option. The calculation of 

the amount of mass that is required to be removed is based upon 

the target removal efficiencies of the HAP's in the Group 1 

streams; however, the total reduction in mass, as measured, may 

include the mass of HAP's actually removed from both Group 1 and 

Group 2 streams combined. 

3.0 TRANSFER 

Dr. Janet Meyer, of the SDB, reviewed the major sections of 

the transfer operations portion of the HON regulation. She 

explained that the rule is similar to the benzene NESHAP for 

transfer operations. Dr. Meyer then mentioned that CMA has asked 

to have vapor balancing added as an alternative control strategy 

and that the EPA is currently considering this request. 

An API representative asked whether the vapor pressure 

cut-off in the rule applies to each individual HAP transferred. 

The EPA responded that an owner or operator would determine 

whether a rack must be controlled by calculating a weighted 

average vapor pressure of all organic HAP's transferred through 

the rack. The average is weighted by the throughput of each HAP. 

An API representative asked how the vapor pressure and 

throughput cut-offs were developed and if the EPA started with a 

target mass emission rate. The EPA responded that these criteria 

are the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor level 

MCH/076 

meeting.sum 5 
P.7 

of control for transfer operations. The floor was determined by 

considering the requirements of the benzene NESHAP and State 

rules. For transfer operations, the floor is identical for new 

and existing sources. 

An API representative asked for clarification of the 

requirements for Group 2 transfer operations. The EPA responded 

the only requirements for Group 2 transfer operations are 

recordkeeping requirements used to prove that the point is not 

originally or has not become a Group 1 point. 

An API representative said the petroleum industry is used to 

the gasoline loading rack standard, which is stated in terms of 

measuring volatile organic compound (VOC) in milligrams per liter 

(mg/L) at the outlet. He added that they would like to avoid an 

inlet/outlet test method. The EPA responded that because of the 

low volumes loaded in the SOCMI, expressing limits in terms of 

mg/L and testing to show compliance with a limit in this format 

would be difficult. For this reason, the HON, like the benzene 

transfer rule, uses the efficiency test. However, the EPA staff 

stated their willingness to consider alternative test methods 

that are appropriate for SOCMI transfer operations if API would 

provide information on any relevant alternative test methods. 

4.0 STORAGE 

Dr. Janet Meyer, of the SDB, reviewed the major sections of 

the storage portion of the HON regulation. She explained that 

this portion of the HON is similar to the provisions of the 

benzene storage NESHAP and the volatile organic liquid (VOL) 

storage new source performance standard (NSPS). 

An API representative asked for the basis of the tank size 

differentiation. The EPA said that historically, in NSPS and 

State regulations, storage tanks have been grouped into 3 tank 

sizes (e.g., small tanks having capacities between 10,000 and 

20,000 gallons; medium tanks having capacities between 20,000 and 

MCH/076 

meeting.sum 6 
P.8 

40,000 gallons; and large tanks having capacities above 

40,000 gallons). The EPA noted that this differentiation has 

been made because it is more cost-effective to control larger 

tanks. 

An API representative noted that the storage vapor pressure 

cut-off is 0.1 pounds per square inch absolute (psia), but the 

Reid vapor pressure (RVP) test method only has a tolerance of 

0.3 psia. The EPA said that the vapor pressure may also be 

estimated based on the American Society of Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) method or on standard text references. The HON does not 

specifically require a vapor pressure test. 

An API representative was concerned that distillates will be 

controlled under the HON. The EPA said that distillates would 

almost always have a vapor pressure below the 0.1 psia cut-off 

and, therefore, would probably not be covered by the HON. In 

response, the API representative also expressed a concern that 

the decrease in vapor pressure cut-offs will set a precedent for 

decreasing the cut-off further under future rules. 

An API representative asked if the vapor pressure 

determination should be based only on the organic HAP's in a 

mixture or on the vapor pressure of the stored liquid as a whole 

(including HAP's and non-HAP•s). The EPA agreed to provide 

clarifying language for the HON. 

The EPA said that CMA had expressed an interest in a lower 

bound, in percentage terms, for determining if the liquid stored 

in a tank should be considered "HAP containing." The API agreed 

that such a bright line applicability boundary should be 

considered. 

An API representative asked if there is an internal rule-ofthumb the EPA uses to determine what is an acceptable incremental 

cost effectiveness value. The EPA responded that there is no 

single criterion. Several factors are considered, including VOC 

control. Previous NSPS may be in the rough range of 

$2,000/megagrams (Mg) VOC, but are calculated in different base 

MCH/076 

meeting.sum 7 
P.9 

year dollars and consider many other factors. Under the new 

Clean Air Act (CAA), the result may be different. References to 

previous actions in the preamble were to specific SOCMI 

regulations and were intended to show that the HON is generally 

consistent. The intent was not to imply that the decision 

criteria are identical. 

5.0 EMISSIONS AVERAGING 

Ms. Daphne McMurrer, of the SDB, reviewed the major sections 

of the emissions averaging portion of the HON regulation and 

pointed out that the emissions averaging procedure is voluntary. 

The handout is provided in Attachment C. 

An API representative said that API has philosophical 

differences with the current emissions averaging provisions and 

does not feel the provisions will be utilized in the petroleum 

industry. The API felt there was little incentive to use the 

averaging provisions as they are currently presented. The API 

provided a handout (Attachment E) citing specific concerns. The 

API added that the averaging provisions will not be of much use 

to the petroleum industry if a refinery can only average among 

HON emission points and not the remaining emission points in the 

refinery. 

The EPA said that the intent of emissions averaging as an 

alternative for complying with the HON has been misrepresented by 

various industry groups. The EPA's intent is to allow overcontrol of emission points which may be cheaper or less difficult 

to control so that sources can avoid control of other emission 

points that are subject to the same rule and are unusually costly 

or difficult to control. The EPA's interpretation of Section 112 

of the 1990 Amendments prohibits averaging across source 

categories. 

The API asked if the EPA was interested in an emissions 

averaging case study. The EPA said they are interested in an 

MCH/076 

meeting.sum 8 
example. In a November 22, 1992 meeting on emissions averaging, 

the EPA and industry agreed that industry had the responsibility 

of providing a volunteer case study facility. 

In response to an API question, the EPA said the 

justification for a quarterly rolling average reporting 

requirement was to reduce the variability of emissions and 

provide the ability to pursue enforcement actions more •" 

efficiently. Specifically, there is concern that use of 

emissions averaging could increase the variability of HAP 

emissions. Also, with quarterly averaging, violations for 

periods less than 1 year could be addressed through an 

administrative action, whereas violations under longer averaging 

periods could involve legal proceedings and greater penalties. 

In response to an API question, the EPA stated that the 

Pollution Prevention office is developing some guidance on what 

is considered pollution prevention for each kind of emission 

point. 

6.0 PROCESS VENTS 

Ms. Sheila Milliken, of the SDB, reviewed the major sections 

of the process vent portion of the HON regulation. Her handout 

is presented in Attachment C 

The EPA asked for comments on the usefulness and format of 

the reporting and recordkeeping tables presented in the handout. 

The EPA also mentioned several corrections that have been made to 

the HON. The constant on page 367 of the draft rule should be 

2.494 x IO"6 and the total resource effectiveness (TRE) constant 

for new source halogenated streams on page 371 should be 

1.417 x IO'2. 

The EPA informed API that staff are considering if the HON 

should require all possible combinations of vents for calculation 

of TRE index values. However, this issue had not yet been 

presented to management so no specific policy change could be 

MCH/076 

masting.sum 9 
P.11 

reported. The EPA also clarified that the rule was not intended 

to require a TRE calculation if a vent is already controlled 

through combustion. 

7.0 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING 

Dr. Janet Meyer, of the SDB, stated that the EPA is 

interested in finding ways to remove unproductive reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. An API representative asked if the 

EPA had coordinated HON requirements with Title V requirements, 

especially the enhanced monitoring provisions. The EPA said the 

requirements have not been compared to Title V since these rules 

are not yet final and are a "moving target." However, the EPA 

will address any overlaps or conflicts between the permit rule 

and the HON prior to the HON's promulgation. The EPA requested 

suggestions about how to reduce the burden of the recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements while maintaining enforceability. 

8.0 CLOSING 

The EPA and API representatives agreed that the meeting had 

been helpful for both groups. The EPA encouraged API to call the 

relevant EPA staff with any further questions or comments in the 

future. 

MCH/076 

meeting, sum 1 0