p.1 

OAR Box 1875 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

45) ll-E-63 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/1/200811:12:46 AM Sheet 45 of 86 
P.2 

A-90-19 

ll-E-63 

SUMMARY OF TELECONFERENCE 

Date: September 24, 1992 

Subject: Chemical Manufacturers Association Issues on the 

Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) 

Attendees: Bruce Jordan, Director of the Emissions Standards 

Division, EPA 

Daphne McMurrer, Emissions Standards Division, EPA 

Jan Meyer, Emissions Standards Division, EPA 

John Rasnic, Director of the Stationary Source 

Compliance Division, EPA 

A' Mamie Miller, Stationary Source Compliance 

Division, EPA 

/<k~ y ' Scott Throw, Stationary Source Compliance Division, 

r^« EPA 

A 

0 ^•"<" JC\ x Jane Engert, Stationary Source Compliance Division, 

% ^ /.- EPA 

~ _ r Elliott Gilberg, Deputy Director of the Air 

T <5o O'J'A' Enforcement Division, EPA 

\^ '„ " '/ Charles Garlow, Air Enforcement Division, EPA 

Pat Embrey, Office of General Council 

Richard Sigman, Chemical Manufacturers Association 

Ted Cromwell, Chemical Manufacturers Association 

Kathy Bailey, Chemical Manufacturers Association 

Annette Stanley, Chemical Manufacturers Association 

Joe Hovias, Union Carbide 

Brian Taranto, Exxon Chemical 

Chuck Malloch, Monsanto 

John Dege, DuPont 

Jack McClure, Shell 

John Rasnic, of EPA, began the meeting by explaining how the 

system of operating parameter monitoring for the HON was expected 

to work. He explained it as a five step process: (1) The source 

does any testing needed to determine an operating parameter range 

that corresponds to proper operation of a control device so that it 

achieves the desired percentage emissions reduction; (2) The source 

proposes a range for the operating parameters for each control 

device; (3) The permitting authority reviews, and must eventually 

approve for incorporation into the operating permit, the proposed 

parameter range for each device; (4) The source operates the 

control device so that the monitoring results are in the proposed 

and approved range; and (5) If, during a period other than an 

excusable period such as those in the Start-Up, Shut-Down & 

Malfunction Plan, the monitoring results are not in the proposed 

and approved range, the source is in violation of its operating 

conditions in the permit. EPA further clarified that: (1) The 

violation is related only to the permit conditions, not the 

emissions limit for the source because the operating parameter 

monitoring cannot be directly linked to emissions for enforcement 

purposes; and (2) EPA's penalty policy treats permit violations 
P.3 

4 

differently from emissions limit violations, though both can be 

cited for fines of up to $25,000 per day. 

CMA asked how the above outlined system for the HON compared 

with the system in the draft Enhanced Monitoring and Compliance 

Certification (EMCC) rule. Mamie Miller, of EPA, explained that 

the draft EMCC system would result in violations of the emissions 

limit for the source. CMA noted that tieing compliance with 

emission limits directly to parameter monitoring would require 

sources to do more thorough and expensive performance tests on 

control devices. Ms. Miller noted that the draft EMCC rule allows 

sources to establish their parameter ranges with engineering 

assessments and manufacturers' recommendations. 

The group discussed the possibility of adding a "workpractice" component to the HON compliance system. John Rasnic, of 

EPA, noted that work-practice standards are very difficult to 

enforce. In response to that concern, Bruce Jordan, of EPA, raised 

the alternative idea of allowing some "excused" values outside the 

permitted operating parameter range, with the intent that only 

sources that have repeated excursions beyond the permitted range 

would be in violation. Both CMA and EPA agreed to consider this 

idea and discuss it at future meetings. 

The group then discussed the issue of allowing computerized 

monitoring systems that only record data when the monitored 

parameter is outside a pre-set range. EPA agreed to review 

materials about these systems, but stated that more information was 

needed before these systems could be used to comply with the HON. 

EPA expressed the concern that these systems would provide no data 

to compliance, only data to prove potential non-compliance. This 

is contrary to EPA's policy of requiring source's to prove 

continual compliance.