p.1 

OAR Box 1168 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

123) ll-C-45 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 4/29/2008 1:47:28 PM Sheet 123 of 131 
P.2 

DI-C-45 

The attached materials were sent to the following Committee Members on 10/23/92. 

Ms. Kathy Bailey 

CMA 

2501 M Street NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Fax: (202)463-1594 

(202) 887-1186 

Mr. Philip J. Harter 

Suite 404 

2301 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Fax: (202)887-1036 

(202) 887-1033 

Mr. Robert Hermanson 

AMOCO Corporation - Mail Code 1207 

200 East Randolph Drive 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Fax: (312)856-2460 

(312) 856-7995 

Mr. Troy Hillier 

Office of Management and Budget 

NEOB Room 3019 

725 17th St. NW 

Washington, DC 20503 

Fax: (202)395-5167 

(202) 395-3084 

Ms. Karen Olsen 

Texas Air Control Board / 

12124 Park 35 Circle / 

Austin, TX 78753 / / 

Fax: (512) 908-1300 \$e> > 

(512) 908-1294 

Ms. Ellen Siegler 

American Petroleum Institute 

1220 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Fax: (202)682-8033 

(202) 682-8271 

/ /•• • \ 

f \ V 

Mr. Larry Goodheart 

Chevron Corporation 

576 Standard Ave. 

Richmond, CA 94802 

Fax: (510)242-1380 

(510) 242-4145 

Mr. Sam Chamberlain 

Manager, Env. Affairs 

Sterling Chemicals, Inc. 

201 Bay St. 

Texas City, TX 77592 

Fax: (409)942-3448 

(409) 942-3043 

Mr. David Doniger 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

1350 New York Ave., NW 

Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

Fax: (202)783-5917 

(202) 783-7800 

Mr. Richard Sigman 

CMA 

2501 M St., NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Fax: (202)887-1237 

(202) 887-1313 

mwctauDcVlocbet .iLf 

ZlSm samm 
P.3 

Mr. Jack Kace 

Dir., Environmental Affairs 

Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. 

340 Kingsland St. 

Nutley, NJ 07110 

Fax: (201)284-0215 

(201) 235-3774 

Mr. Alfred W. Bichum 

Manager, Value Engineer 

Goodyear 

1144 E. Market St. 

Akron, OH 44316 

Fax: (216)796-6459 

(216) 796-1534 

Mr. Gustave Von Bodungen 

Air Quality Division 

Dept. of Env. Quality 

625 N. Fourth St. 

Baton Rouge, LA 70804 

Fax: (504)765-0222 

(504) 765-0219 

Mr. David Gustafson 

Dow Chemical USA 

Env. Quality Dept. 

2030 Dow Center 

Midland, MI 48674 

Fax: (517)638-9933 

(517) 636-2953 

Mr. Thomas Kittleman 

E.L Dupont de Nemours 

Engineering Dept. 

Louviers Bldg. 

Neward, DE 19714 

Fax: (302)366-2057 

(302) 366-4718 

Ms. Cheryl L. Sutterfield 

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers 

110 Fifteenth St., NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Fax: (202)835-3597 

(202) 835-3548 

Mr. Robert V. Majewski 

NYSDEC 

50 Wolf Road 

Albany, NY 12233-3255 

Fax: (518)457-0794 

(518)457-7450 

mwc\muc\doc|getj|f 
P.4 

^6°

 srV. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY f ^ ro

 UNI 'b D STATE S

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A( 

' ^JJ^7 I Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

\ PM-r 

\<^J£ > / Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

1> r^s 

October 23, 1992 

Dear Reg Neg Committee Member: 

Attached are final editorial changes to pages 3, 6, 11 and 12 

of the preamble and a draft final agreement on the draft preamble 

sections and negotiated regulation. The draaft final Agreement is 

based on the version approved by the Committee and circulated on 

August 20, 1991, with only minor changes. Due to the possibility 

of the HON package going to Washington for signature imminently, we 

are faxing these items to you. 

We will be calling each of you on Monday to verify your 

concurrence with the final package. For purposes of tracking, the 

April 25, 1991 draft preamble section VII, change pages sent to you 

on July 1, 1991, and these change pages comprise the draft 

preamble, and the March 6, 1991 Federal Reaister version as amended 

by the October 2, 1992 package is the final negotiated draft 

regulation. 

Please call Phil Harter by Monday, October 26, 1992 with your 

comments on the draft final agreement. If we have not heard from 

you otherwise, we will be sending a final agreement out for your 

signature later in the week. 

Thank you for your forbearance. 

Sincerely, 

TmHEl 
P.5 

J 

participants at the initial meeting responded favorably to 

the concept of negotiation, and on September 12, 1989, EPA 

established a negotiating committee (54 FR 37725). The 

Committee met over a period of 1 year, holding nine 2-day 

meetings and one 1-day meeting, to resolve the various 

issues related to developing a MACT standard for equipment 

leaks. The Committee members are listed in Table VII-1. 

The Committee considered the many factors and 

uncertainties associated with regulating equipment leaks at 

a wide variety of chemical plants and developed an 

acceptably balanced approach, weighing the need to be 

flexible, the technical uncertainties, the requirement for 

MACT standards, and the data limitations. At the final 

negotiating session, the Committee members conceptually 

resolved all outstanding major issues and decided to reach 

final agreement through a two-step process. The Committee 

members first agreed in principle to the regulatory language 

to be proposed and then concurred on signed the final 

aggeement afteg a draft preamble to the regulation 

describing in detail the scope, application, effect, and 

rat iona le§| had been prepared and concurred on by the 

Committee-;—The Committee reached final agreement on the 

draft preamble and regulation on All Committee 

members have agreed to support the standard as long as EPA 

proposes and promulgates a regulation and its preamble with 
P.6 

chemicals. Over the course of the negotiations, and in 

anticipation of the CAAA of 1990, EPA saw the need to expand 

this scope to include not only the original HON source 

categories, but also all SOCMI processes that use as a 

reactant or produce one of the organic chemicals listed in 

the CAA list of 189 hazardous air pollutants. The EPA 

identified 453- !§§f§ such processes. The Committee agreed to 

expand the scope of the negotiations to the larger group of 

SOCMI processes and to retain the non-SOCMI categories. 

In addition, EPA determined that petroleum refinery 

processes would not be covered by these standards, 

regardless o whether the unit supplies feedstocks that 

include chemicals listed in Section 63.183, and that MACT 

standards for petroleum processes would be established in a 

separate rulemaking. These standards also would not be 

applicable to other petroleum-related facilities, including 

those engaged in petroleum exploration, production, 

marketing, or transportation. Refinery processes not 

covered by this regulation include, but are not limited to, 

cracking, reforming, coking, and other processes that 

produce transportation fuels, heating oils, or lubricants. 

Table VII-2 presents a more detailed list of examples of 

refinery processes not included in the scope of this rule. 

an 
P.7 

The negotiated rule would apply to both existing and 

new process units. The negotiated rule categorizes the 

regulated processes into 5 groups and uses a staggered 

implementation scheme, requiring some process units to 

comply in 1/2 year, while others would comply as late as 

1 and 1/2 years after final promulgation of the rule. This 

staggered implementation was provided to alleviate the 

impact of applying the rules simultaneously to all sources. 

An affected "process unit" means equipment that uses a 

VHAP as a reactant or produces a VHAP or its derivatives as 

intermediate or final product(s), including all equipment 

associated with the unit process operation, storage and 

transfer of feed material to the unit process operation and 

final or intermediate product from the unit process 

operation, and operations treating wastewater (e.g., 

strippers, decanters) from the unit process operation. 

The proposed standards would apply to chemical 

manufacturing processes operated to produce one or more of 

the chemicals listed in Section 63.184. Examples of SOCMI 

production processes that would be subject are a unit 

process operation that produces ethylbenzene from benzene, a 

unit that produces phenol and acetone from cumene, and a 

unit that produces aethyl methacrylate butadiene by 

purification of separation from an impure mixed d-4 stream 

.feedstock received from another plant site. Examples of 

operations that would not be considered subject to this 

11 
P.8 

standard are waste solvent reclamation or a SOCMI process 

using of any of the chemicals listed in Section 63.183 or 

63.184 only as a solvent. 

The standard would also apply to equipment handling 

specific chemicals for the non-SOCMI source categories 

listed in Section 63.160 (c). These source categories and 

chemicals are: styrene-butadiene rubber production 

(styrene, butadiene), polybutadiene production (butadiene), 

chlorine production (carbon tetrachloride), pesticide 

production (carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, and 

ethylene dichloride), chlorinated hydrocarbon use in SOCMI 

units (carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, 

tetrachloroethylene, chloroform, and ethylene dichloride) 

pharmaceutical production (carbon tetrachloride, methylene 

chloride), and miscellaneous butadiene use (butadiene). 

The lines within a unit process operation containing 

process fluids are considered to be part of the process unit 

and thus, subject to regulatory requirements, while lines 

and equipment not containing process fluids are not subject 

to these requirements. Utilities, and other nonprocess 

lines, such as heating and cooling systems, are not 

considered to be part of a process unit. For example, any 

direct heating and cooling systems, which generally service 

many processes at a plant and do not combine their materials 

with those in the processes they service, are also not 

subject to these requirements. 

12 
P.9 

Draft 

April 19, 1991 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING COMMITTEE 

CONCERNING 

CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

AGREEMEN T 

The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee considered the technical and policy issues involved 

in controlling fugitive emissions of hazardous air pollutants from equipment leaks and has reached 

a consensus on a recommended proposed rule to implement Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as 

amended in 1990. 

:

 , a party to the negotiations, agrees that: 

1. The person signing this agreement is authorized to commit the party to its terms. 

2. The party concurs in the recommended proposed rule and its preamble when considered as 

a whole. The recommended proposed rule was published at 56 Fed. Reg. 9313 (March 6, 

1991). The preamble is dated and is attached to this Agreement. 

3. The party agrees to the explanation of the "Relationship between this Regulation and Future 

Regulations for Refinery Equipment Leaks" that is dated August 23,1990 and is attached to 

this Agreement. The party also agrees that the August 23,1990, explanation shall be included 

in the preambles to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the Final Rule. 

4. EPA will publish the recommended proposed rule as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. EPA 

agrees to draft a preamble to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning equipment leaks 

that has the same substance and effect as the preamble concurred in by the Committee and 

attached to this Agreement- EPA may modify the preamble concurred in by the Committee 

to clarify points raised and to incorporate the equipment leak standard into a broader 

proposed rule consistent with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

5. EPA will send the individuals on the Committee copies of those portions of the preamble and 

of the proposed rule in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that concern equipment leaks for 

their review and comment prior to the signature of the Administrator on the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. 

6. Each party other than EPA agrees not to file negative comments on the proposed rule or the 

preamble concerning equipment leaks to the extent the proposed rule and the preamble to the 

proposed rule have the same substance and effect as the recommended proposed rule and the 

preamble that are the subject of the final agreement. 

7. Each party other than EPA may comment on those portions of the preamble in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that explain EPA's position on issues that were not the subject of 
P.10 

negotiations or are not contained in the preamble to which the Committee concurred. Such 

issues include but are not limited to an analysis of the costs, the cost effectiveness, and other 

impacts of the proposed rule. 

8. EPA will consider all relevant comments submitted concerning the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and in response to such comments will make only such modifications in the proposed rule and the preamble as are necessary when issuing a final rule. 

9. EPA will provide copies of the final rule and its preamble to members of the Committee prior 

to their signature by the Administrator. 

10. Each party other than EPA agrees not to take any action to inhibit the adoption of the 

recommended proposed rule as a final rule to the extent the final rule and its preamble have 

the same substance and effect as the recommended proposed rule and the preamble concurred 

in by the Committee. 

11. Each party other than EPA agrees not to challenge the rule in court to the extent that the final 

rule and its preamble have the same substance and effect as the recommended proposed rule 

and the preamble concurred in by the Committee. 

12. Any change in the applicability of the proposed rule and its preamble to petroleum operations 

shall be considered as not having the same substance and effect as the recommended 

proposed rule. 

13. Each party other than EPA agrees to provide a memorandum that it participated in the 

negotiations and that it concurred in the recommended proposed rule when considered as a 

whole if the rule is challenged in court and the preamble and rule have the same substance 

and effect with respect to equipment leaks as the recommended proposed rule and the 

preamble concurred in by the Committee. 

Organization 

Date