p.1 

OAR Box 1875 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

3) ll-E-21 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/1/200811:12:43 AM Sheet 3 of 86 
P.2 

A-90-19 

ll-E-21 

SUMMARY OF MEETING BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF CMA AND EPA/OAQPS 

DATE: 

PLACE: 

ATTENDEES: 

February 28, 1991 

Mutual Building, Durham, North Carolina 

Danny Anderson, First Chemical 

Jennifer Buzun, Radian Corporation 

Linda Chaput, EPA/ESD 

Nancy Cookson, CMA 

Leslie Evans, EPA/ESD 

Karen Fidler, CMA 

Liz Fisher, Rohm and Haas Company 

Jan Meyer, EPA/ESD 

Julie Anne Probert, Radian Corporation 

Thomas A. Robinson, Vulcan Chemicals 

Bob Rosensteel, EPA/ESD 

Jack Schauer, Shell Chemical 

Richard Sigman, CMA 

Tom Stark, Amoco Chemicals 

Brian Taranto, Exxon Chemical 

Bill Vatavuk, EPA/ESD 

Sheryl Watkins, Radian Corporation 

Al Wehe, EPA/ESD 

Joe Woolbert, Texas Eastman Company 

Susan Wyatt, EPA/ESD 

;

;

.nrov " 

' DEC I 8 1992 

L*=«2^' 

<• 1" « 7: 

J 'lit ' 

PURPOSE OF MEETING 

Representatives of the Chemical Manufacturers' Association 

(CMA) and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) met to discuss the 

Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) regulatory development program. 

Discussion centered on three major issues: 

• Explanation of the SOCMI categories that will be 

covered by the HON; 

• CMA's estimate of the increase in demand for control 

equipment, engineering services, and permitting time 

that will result from the HON; and 

• CMA's interest that the HON include a phased-in 

compliance schedule. 

MCH/005 
P.3 

SCOPE OF THE HON 

Mr. Bob Rosensteel of EPA's Emissions Standards Division 

explained that a Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry (SOCMI) production process would be covered by the HON 

if that process: 

1) produces any of 110 organic Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(HAP's), or 

2) uses any of the 110 organic HAP's to produce a SOCMI 

chemical. 

The EPA presently estimates that this will include the 

production processes of approximately 390 SOCMI chemicals. When 

asked about the definition of a SOCMI chemical, Mr. Rosensteel 

explained that, in earlier EPA contract work, a list of 660 

chemicals was generated. This list was presented as a set of 

chemical trees for relatively high volume petrochemicals. A 

subset of 390 of these 660 SOCMI chemicals is anticipated to be 

affected by the HON, based on the finding that organic HAP's 

could be emitted from the production of these 390 chemicals. 

Chemical processes outside of SOCMI which use the 110 HAP's will 

not be affected by the rule. Standard Industrial Classification 

(SIC) codes 2865 and 2869 are the only ones included. 

A representative of CMA asked why EPA's original mailout for 

the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee 

(NAPCTAC) had mentioned 450 chemicals as opposed to 390. 

Mr. Rosensteel replied that the list had been refined through 

further investigation of the various chemical production 

processes. In some cases, certain processes are no longer used 

or were found not to use HAP's. In addition, chemicals were 

removed from the list if their production involved only inorganic 

HAP's. EPA is continuing to investigate a few of the more 

complex processes. If these complex processes are broken down 

into their component processes, the list of 390 chemicals may 

expand slightly. Ms. Jan Meyer (EPA) added that, since the 

negotiated regulation for equipment leaks includes source 

categories not covered by the HON, the list of affected chemicals 

MCH/005 2 
P.4 

for the equipment leaks rule may differ from the one for the 

other HON sources. 

When CMA asked whether there are 390 chemicals or 

390 processes, Mr. Rosensteel replied that there are 

390 chemicals. EPA does not plan to specify routes to each 

chemical. Thus, there may be more than 390 processes involved 

since there may be multiple production processes for some of the 

chemicals. 

There was a question from CMA regarding whether by-products 

would be regulated. Specifically, if a process produces X (not a 

HAP) as a product and Y (HAP) as a by-product, would that process 

be regulated? Mr. Rosensteel replied that, if Y has economic 

value (i.e., can be sold or used), then the process would be 

covered by the HON. If Y is a wasted material, then the process 

would not be covered. This would be similar to the new source 

performance standard (NSPS) for distillation process vents. In 

response to a question regarding what is the difference between 

raw materials and reactants, Mr. Rosensteel clarified that EPA 

considers the two to be equivalent, with the exception of 

solvents which will not be covered by the HON. 

ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF PROCESS UNITS 

Mr. Rosensteel explained that process units were developed 

from readily available information on capacity. Data on facility 

names, locations, and capacities were summarized from the 

Chemical Marketing Reporter, Mannsville Chemical Products 

Synopsis, and SRI Directory of Chemical Producers. Location was 

significant in determining which state regulations would be 

applicable in determining baseline levels of control. The HON 

data bases contain approximately 1100 process units that are 

expected to be covered by the HON. Mr. Rosensteel added that 

there may be more than 1100 affected process units since 

sufficient information was not available for all processes. CMA 

asked how many of the process units EPA felt comfortable with 

regarding quality. Mr. Rosensteel replied that EPA is reasonably 

comfortable with data (e.g., location, capacity, process 

MCH/005 
P.5 

description) on 40 percent of the chemicals which represent 

95 percent of production tonnage. 

A representative of CMA asked if earlier work by 

Hydroscience was being updated. Mr. Rosensteel replied that, in 

the interest of time, EPA is relying primarily on the 

Hydroscience data. However, he added that EPA has reviewed the 

technical process information in the Hydroscience report and has 

updated some of the information with data from more recent 

Section 114 responses. 

When asked about the types of models EPA is using in the 

HON, Mr. Rosensteel said that generic emission and cost models 

were assigned to evaluate impacts. The number of models varies 

from source to source. CMA said that in the Toxics Release 

Inventory System (TRIS), there are 753 facilities in SIC 2865 and 

2869. CMA doubts that EPA's estimate of 1100 process units is 

accurate since CMA estimates between 5 and 15 process units per 

facility. For 753 facilities, this would exceed EPA's estimate 

of a national total of 1100 process units. CMA also felt that 

EPA's estimate of chemical production was low. Mr. Rosensteel 

stated that he thought the EPA estimate was in reasonable 

agreement with estimates from previous EPA projects. 

Mr. Rosensteel offered that EPA can share data from the HON data 

bases listing the process units per chemical and CMA can provide 

information on any gaps in this list. CMA said that they would 

review the EPA estimates. 

Ms. Linda Chaput (EPA) emphasized that EPA has not decided 

whether or not the list of 390 chemicals will be included in the 

text of the regulation. Companies should base their decision on 

participating in the early reduction program on: (1) whether or 

not they produce one of the 660 SOCMI chemicals and (2) whether 

they emit one of the 189 HAP's during that production. 

DEMAND FOR CONTROL EQUIPMENT, ENGINEERING SERVICES, AND PERMIT 

REVIEW 

Mr. Al Wehe and Mr. Bill Vatavuk of EPA's Cost and Economic 

Impacts Section (CEIS) reviewed CMA's letter to the Agency 

regarding the increase in demand for control equipment, 

MCH/005 4 
P.6 

engineering services, and permit review time that could result 

from the application of MACT standards to all SOCMI processes at 

one time. Mr. Wehe said that he saw CMA's perspective as being 

that of the "demand side" and that Mr. Vatavuk had some insight 

into the "supply side" based on conversations with the Industrial 

Gas Cleaning Institute (IGCI) which is a trade association for 

vendors of air pollution control equipment. 

Mr. Vatavuk described his conversations with Mr. Ray Connor, 

Technical Director of IGCI. Mr. Connor feels that there is 

enough capacity within his industry to meet the needs of the 

chemical industry for combustion control devices. He could not 

comment on non-combustion devices since none of IGCI's member 

companies manufacture them. Regarding equipment delivery times, 

Mr. Connor felt that 24 to 36 months was a worst case estimate 

and that application of MACT standards would not increase that 

time. Mr. Connor had said that much shorter delivery times are 

possible depending on whether the equipment is custom-designed or 

packaged (skid mounted). 

Representatives of CMA said that this did not square with 

their experience. CMA argued that vendors generally feel like 

they have to say that they can meet the demand because anything 

else would sound bad. Most CMA members do not buy skid-mounted 

equipment and recently have had bad experiences with equipment 

supply. CMA also wanted to know if the vendors can improve their 

performance (i.e., meeting commitments on schedule) while 

simultaneously meeting a higher demand. 

Mr. Wehe said that since CMA's letter listed combustion 

devices as the main problem, why don't facilities tie into their 

existing combustion capacity. CMA replied that this can cause 

safety problems (e.g., low flow, low pressure vents) and cause 

exceedances of other de minimis levels. It depends on where the 

cut offs are. 

Mr. Vatavuk asked why combustion devices have to be custom 

designed. CMA responded that specifications can vary greatly 

depending on stream characteristics such as pressure, 

temperature, composition, etc. Companies try not to integrate 

their plants too much because of safety and operational concerns. 

MCH/005 
P.7 

The compatibility of add-on control equipment and existing 

process control systems has proven to be a difficult problem. 

Mr. Vatavuk sent a copy of CMA's letter to Mr. Connor at 

IGCI. Mr. Connor is currently surveying some of his 40+ member 

companies. Mr. Vatavuk expects to hear the results of the survey 

sometime in March. 

According to CMA, the list of acceptable vendors is actually 

shorter than the 40 that Mr. Connor is surveying. CMA feels that 

the chemical industry is entering an era of very specific and 

difficult permit requirements with more monitoring and heavier 

enforcement. The industry will need to be even more particular 

about choosing vendors that have proven track records in order to 

avoid installing systems that will not be in compliance. This 

could result in bottlenecks since the better vendors will be in 

high demand. 

CMA believes that experienced engineering manpower will be a 

major problem since the chemical industry, vendors, and permit 

reviewers will all be competing for a limited number of 

engineers. Even if the number of new engineering graduates 

increases, the SOCMI will still have a problem since it needs 

more experienced engineers. CMA also foresees several peaks in 

activity within the anticipated 3 years of compliance time. The 

demand side (industry) will peak within the first year and the 

supply side (vendors, permit reviewers) will peak during the last 

two years. 

CMA is concerned that the additional burden on both vendors 

and permit review agencies will make it impossible for industry 

to comply within 3 years. CMA has estimated the increased demand 

to be approximately 4 to 6 times current demand and vendors are 

having a hard time meeting that current demand. Slow delivery 

cuts into the 3 years as does slow permit review. CMA added that 

of the two types of permits — construction permits and operating 

permits — construction permits are the real issue since they 

must be obtained before any construction can begin. EPA asked 

for a representative timeline for a short schedule and long 

schedule regarding engineering design, permit review and 

installation/operation. Could CMA bound the problem with best 

and worst cases? 

MCH/005 6 
P.8 

A CMA representative asked if EPA is planning to project the 

increase in demand for control equipment. Mr. Rosensteel replied 

that EPA could estimate an upper bound assuming that everyone had 

to buy new devices. Mr. Wehe emphasized that it is still early 

to make a real estimate since regulatory alternatives have not 

yet been determined. 

There was also a question from CMA regarding how EPA is 

estimating the increase in demand for permit review. CMA has 

three areas of concern. First, various agencies have published 

documents addressing permitting issues. CMA feels that these 

issues are not cut and dry, but are continually being explored 

and re-answered. Secondly, under Title I of the CAA, States will 

have to provide revisions to their State Implementation Plans by 

1992 regarding New Source Review. Thirdly, Title V will require 

new operating permits. CMA would like some feedback on these 

areas from EPA's permitting people. Ms. Meyer suggested they 

contact the Permit Programs Branch to discuss their concerns. 

EPA asked CMA to clarify the basis for the regulatory 

scenario presented in their letter. CMA responded that their 

estimate of a 4 to 6 fold increase was based on a sampling of 

their members. Control equipment was selected based on NSPS 

requirements and other estimates of MACT. Most of the control 

involved add-on devices. A factor was developed to represent 

what control equipment had been added in the past and what would 

be needed in the future. EPA asked if they could see the CMA 

questionnaire. CMA agreed to send a copy. 

PHASE-IN OF THE HON 

Representatives of CMA asked what the Clean Air Act would 

allow regarding schedule. Are there constraints that would 

prevent EPA from staggering the implementation for the five 

sources or for different sets of processes? Ms. Meyer responded 

that there are legal and policy issues that still need to be 

answered. CMA asked if the decision to phase the regulation 

would complicate things. Ms. Meyer responded that EPA could not 

answer that question yet. 

MCH/005 
P.9 

CMA stated that phasing the regulation could be helpful 

since it would allow EPA and industry to evaluate how things were 

going and make changes in later phases. Mr. Rosensteel responded 

that time really is not a luxury for the HON since under the 

Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA has only 10 years to promulgate 

standards for all source categories and subcategories that emit 

HAP's. EPA needs a very convincing argument for phasing the rule 

because such an approach would have to be supported by 

information in the public record in the event of a lawsuit by 

environmental groups or others. CMA asked EPA to let them know 

what information would be needed to build a persuasive case for 

phasing. 

Ms. Susan Wyatt (EPA) said that the final decision on 

phasing the HON may not be made until after the proposal. The 

proposed Notice of Rulemaking might just discuss how phasing 

could be implemented and request comments. Industry could 

respond after they had seen the actual rule and determined its 

effects. Then, after consideration of public comment, EPA could 

decide whether to promulgate a phased compliance schedule. 

CMA also mentioned that EPA's Office of Toxic Substances 

(OTS) has a project that seems to be in direct conflict with the 

HON. The Industrial Toxics Project is emphasizing "source 

reduction" which CMA has understood to mean redesigning a process 

instead of applying end-of-pipe control equipment. Ms. Meyer 

explained that much of what the Industrial Toxics Project terms 

"source reduction" or "pollution prevention" is consistent with 

the requirements of specific standards under Sections 111 or 112. 

The real conflicts that have arisen are over the compliance 

schedules, with Section 111 and 112 standards having much shorter 

times. In general, the actual physical changes or equipment 

additions will be identical. 

Ms. Fisher argued that the compliance time allowed under the 

MACT program is not sufficient for implementing process changes 

and therefore encourages the use of end-of-pipe control 

equipment. CMA believes that companies really will not be able 

to pursue both emission reduction strategies simultaneously. 

Ms. Fisher added that EPA should take steps to ensure that the 

HON rules are coordinated with the pollution prevention program. 

MCH/005 8 
P.10 

Ms. Meyer responded that there would be coordination across 

Agency programs. Ms. Meyer added that, in order to be 

productive, any future discussions on this subject need to be 

specific to the particular regulatory requirements and source 

operations that appear to be in conflict. 

SUMMARY 

EPA agreed to send CMA a list of the number and location of 

the various process units in the HON data bases. In addition, 

EPA will check with Ray Connor about discussing with CMA the 

results of his survey of IGCI member companies. 

CMA agreed to send EPA a copy of the questionnaire used in 

the CMA survey along with other assumptions related to their 

estimate of increased demand. CMA will also send a Gantt chart 

for a representative project construction and permitting 

timeline. This information needs to be submitted to EPA by the 

end of May at the latest in order to be helpful in decision 

making. In addition, CMA will try to set up a meeting with EPA's 

permitting experts. 

MCH/005