P.1 

OAR Box 1338 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

14) ll-E-25 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 6/17/2008 1:48:06 PM Sheet 14 of 105 
P.2 

LAW OFFICES 

PHILIP J. HARTER 

SUITE 404 

2301 M STREET. N.W. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037 

(202) 887-1033 

FAX: (202) 887-1036 

A-89-10 

II-E-2 5 

ift^'' 

August 30, 1990 

MEMORANDUM 

To: EPA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Fugitive Emissions from Equipment Leaks and Interested 

Parties 

Fr: Philip J. Harter 

Facilitator 

Re: Minutes of "Gap Filling and Drafting Workgroup" Meeting of August 23 

The Gap Filling and Drafting Workgroup met here in my office on August 23. The minutes of that 

meeting, which were prepared by Radian Corporation, are attached. EPA is busy wrapping words around all 

the concepts and will distribute a draft rule in a couple of weeks. 

As the minutes indicate, most of those attending last week's meeting were of the view that an interim 

agreement in principle should be signed once we have an agreement on a proposed rule. That agreement 

would be preliminary pending development of critical portions of the preamble that explain the rule. The 

feeling was that the preliminary agreement would put the issues to rest, so we would all know what we are 

dealing with; those who needed to start preparing to implement it could do so, and it would protect others 

from having to worry about reopening issues later on. Everyone agreed that the preamble is very important 

and that a final agreement must await the preparation of at least portions of it. Some at the meeting felt that 

any agreement should await the preamble since it necessarily has a critical bearing on the practical effects of 

the rule itself. There seemed to be an agreement to execute an agreement in principle, but those who felt 

strongly that any agreement should follow the preamble would not have to sign at this time. 

I revised the draft agreement that was previously circulated to convert it into an agreement in principle 

and to take into account several comments that I received on the earlier one. Please review it carefully and 

send me any comments you may have on it fairly soon so I can incorporate them into the agreement that is 

sent with the rule. 
P.3 

Draft 

t>*H 

^ - # August 31, 1990 J ^ 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 

CONCERNING 

CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

AGREEMEN T IN PRINCIPL E 

The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee considered the technical and policy issues involved in controlling 

fugitive emissions of toxic chemicals from equipment leaks pursuant to the Clean Air Act and has reached a 

consensus on a recommended proposed rule. 

_, a party to the negotiations, agrees that: 

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

When considered as a whole, the party concurs in the recommended proposed rule that is dated 

and entitled "National Emission Standard for Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)." 

3. The party recognizes, however, that the preamble to the rule may have an important bearing on its scope, 

application, and practical effect. Therefore, the party and the Committee as a whole will not be in a 

position to enter into a final agreement on the recommended proposed rule until it-is accompanied by the 

critical portions of its preamble. The party will agree to the recommended proposed rule and its preamble 

at such time as the preamble is consistent with and explains the rule satisfactorily. A final agreement will 

be executed at that time. 

EPA agrees to draft a preamble consistent with the recommended proposed rule and explain its basis and 

purpose consistent with the understanding of the Committee. EPA will submit the preamble to the 

Committee for its concurrence. 

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

for Refinery Equipment Leaks" that dated August 23, 1990 and attached to this Agreement in Principle. 

6. The final agreement will provide that -

a. EPA will publish the recommended proposed rule and its preamble as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Controlling Fugitive Emissions of Toxic Chemicals from Equipment Leaks. 

b. Each other party agrees that it will not file negative comments on the proposed rule of the preamble 

to the extent they are consistent with the recommended proposed rule and preambkkthat are the 

subject of the final agreement. Each party is free to comment on those portions of the pnonnble that 

do not explain the basis and purpose of the agreed upon rule but rather explain EPA's position on 

issues that were not the subject of negotiations. 
P.4 

c. EPA will consider all relevant comments submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

and will make such modifications in the proposed rule and the preamble as is necessary when issuing 

a rule. 

d. Each other party agrees not take any action to inhibit the adoption of the recommended proposed rule 

as a rule. 

e. Each party other than EPA agrees not to challenge the rule in court if the final rule and its preamble 

are consistent with the recommended proposed rule. 

f. Each party other than EPA agrees to file a memorandum informing the agency or the court that it 

participated in the negotiations and that it concurred in the recommended proposed rule when 

considered as a whole -

(1) if adverse comments are filed with the agency or if the rule is challenged in court, and 

(2) the preamble and rule are consistent with the recommended proposed rule. 

Individual Committee Member 

Organization 

Date 
August 23, 1990 

Relationship between this Regulation and Future Regulations 

for Refinery Equipment Leaks 

The standards incorporated in this agreement were established 

by the Negotiating Committee based primarily on data from 

well-controlled ethylene oxide plants and data from a number of 

SOCMI plants. The Committee did not review data from petroleum 

refining processes because they were outside the scope of the 

negotiations, and the Committee did not consider whether the 

numerical standards in this agreement are achievable by refinery 

processes. The Committee recognizes that there are technical 

differences between SOCMI categories and petroleum processes that 

may affect the achievability of the numerical standards 

(including percent leakers). Potential differences include the 

availability and effectiveness of emission control technologies, 

plant shutdown practices, line sizes, process temperatures and 

process pressures, and cost. These differences could work in the 

direction of making the numerical standards adopted by the 

Committee more easily achievable, or less easily achievable, for 

refinery processes. 

The Committee agrees that the framework used for the 

regulation developed during the current negotiation should be 

adopted in the MACT regulation for petroleum refinery equipment 

leaks unless there are sound technical reasons why a different 

framework would be more effective. 

API understands that the numerical standards included in this 

negotiated rule are more stringent than those that would have 

been selected if the rule had provided that exceedences of 

numerical standards, by themselves, constituted violations of the 

Act. API recognizes that this will also be true of the numerical 

standards that will be included in a MACT regulation for refinery 

equipment leaks utilizing the framework of the 

currently-negotiated regulation. 

If EPA develops MACT refinery equipment leak regulations, it 

will conduct a separate rulemaking. Technical differences 

between SOCMI and refinery processes that may affect the 

achievability of the standards will be considered by EPA in the 

refinery equipment leak rulemaking. 
REG NEG "DELIVERABLES" 

P.6 

Del iverable Date 

Draft revised regulation reflecting agreements 8/30/90 

reached at the 8/23 meeting 

Draft meeting minutes from the 8/23 meeting 9/4/90 

Comments due on 8/29/90 draft regulation 9/11/90 

Draft preamble language on use of data in 9/19/90 

setting standards 

Draft revised regulation incorporating comments 9/19/90 

received on the 8/29/90 draft 

Final revised draft regulation 10/10/90 

Sign agreement (in principle, or final if 10/17/90 

preceding preamble language acceptable) 

Draft FR notice describing results of Reg Neg. 11/90 

This would not be the actual preable to the reg, 

which will be part of the HON, but will describe 

in detail all the elements and decisions that 

went into developing the regulation. We did the 

same thing in woodstoves, but I envision a more 

elaborate notice here. This is the "preamble" 

that people will want to see. 
P.7 

WORKGROUP MEETING ON FUGITIVE EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

AUGUST 23, 1990 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES 

A summary of the general agreements reached are presented. The following 

presentation materials are attached. 

Attachment 1 

Attachment 2 

Attachment 3 

Attachment 4 

Attachment 5 

Attachment 6 

Meeting Agenda 

Attendance List 

CMA Proposal for Staggered Implementation of the Regulation 

Conceptual Approach for Pumps 

Timeline for Implementation of Pumps Standard 

API Suggested Language Addressing Applicability of 

Negotiated Regulation to Refinery BTX Units 

Agreement on the Negotiated Rule 

• The meeting attendees (see Attachment 2) agreed to sign a 

tentative agreement on the rule as soon as the rule is finalized 

(with the exception of the American Petroleum Institute) and to 

sign a final agreement after Committee review of the preamble. 

Mr. Larry Goodheart and Ms. Ellen Siegler, representing the 

American Petroleum Institute (API), expressed their desire to see 

the preamble section documenting the rationale for the negotiated 

standard before signing the agreement. 

• Mr. David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 

asked about the fate of the negotiated standard if the proposed 

Clean Air Act is not passed this year. The meeting attendees 

agreed that the results of the negotiated regulation should be 

published in some form, perhaps as a revision to an existing rule 

or a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document. 

Staggered Implementation of the Regulation 

• Mr. Tom Kittleman, representing the Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (CMA), proposed a methodology for staggering the 

implementation of the equipment leaks negotiated regulation (see 

Attachment 3). The hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) listed in the 

proposed Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments were divided into five 

groups based on carcinogenicity rankings, and all product 

processes that produce or use as intermediates any of these HAPs 

would be similarly separated. The meeting members agreed that all 

five groups of product processes will be phased by quarters into 

the regulation (within one year plus one day). In addition, the 

eight non-SOCMI categories that will be subject to the equipment 

leaks regulation will be included in the first phase-in group. 

HAPs in a later phase-in group that are used to produce a HAP in 

an earlier phase-in group would be regulated at the earlier date. 

• Mr. Goodheart stated that API would agree to include 

benzene/toluene/xylene (BTX) units in the aforementioned staggered 

implementation if they could be phased in with a later group, 

since benzene equipment leaks are already controlled and toluene 

and xylene have low carcinogenicity rankings. Mr. Bob Ajax of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that BTX do not 

need the extra time to comply with the regulation that they would 

enjoy by being placed into a later phase-in group, because 

existing benzene leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs have 

prepared these units for the negotiated regulation. In addition, 

Mr. Ajax felt that the high carcinogenicity ranking of benzene 

warrants inclusion of BTX units in the first phase-in group. 
P.8 

Pumps 

Valves 

As a result of the phase-in concept, the question arose as to 

whether EPA will promulgate five separate equipment leak rules or 

one rule with five applicability dates of compliance for the five 

phase-in groups. The meeting attendees agreed that one rule with 

five applicability dates of compliance seemed more logical, as 

long as an appropriate Federal Register notice was issued before 

the applicability date of each phase-in group. 

The meeting attendees agreed to a standard for pumps (see 

Attachment 4). Attachment 5 presents the timeline for 

implementing the standard. The leak definition of 1,000 ppmv in 

Phase 3 for general duty pumps was introduced at previous 

meetings, along with a trigger concentration for repair at 2,000 

ppmv. The concept of a six-month rolling average for determining 

allowable leakers was proposed by API to account for randomness of 

screening values for a small population of pumps. The leak 

definitions of 2,000 ppmv for pumps in food and medical service 

and 5,000 ppmv for pumps in polymerizing monomer service were 

selected to account for the limited applicability of dual 

mechanical seals to these pumps. 

The meeting attendees agreed that a process unit could begin the 

six-month rolling average up to one month after a process unit 

start-up. Leaking pumps would not be counted In the percent 

leakers calculation up to one month after start-up. 

• The meeting attendees agreed that process units could enter the 

valve quality improvement program (QIP) only within one year after 

the beginning of Phase 3, but that they could stay in the QIP 

indefinitely and monitor quarterly (or less frequently, if 

otherwise qualified to do so) while implementing a QIP program. 

Entering a QIP program after the first year of Phase 3 or reentering the QIP program would not be allowed. 

• The EPA agreed to include in the preamble a rationale for 

exempting small corporations from performance trials aimed at 

identifying low-leak valve technologies and effective maintenance 

practices. 

• The meeting attendees discussed the provision in the draft rule 

for inter- and intra-company sharing of data in the QIP program. 

The draft rule was revised to reflect the consensus of the meeting 

attendees on this issue. 

Alternative Means of Emission Limitation 

• Concerns were expressed with the existing equivalency provisions 

in the regulation, while the EPA expressed its concerns with some 

of CMA's proposed examples of equivalency. The meeting attendees 

agreed to comment on the EPA's revisions to the equivalency 

section of the negotiated rule. 

Credit for Removing Components from Service 

• The meeting attendees agreed to a "three for two" credit for 

removing valves and flanges from service. That is, for every 

three valves or flanges removed from service, two of the 

components could still be included in calculating percentage of 

leaking components. 
P.9 

Criterion for Exempting Plants from Monthly Monitoring and QIP Provisions 

• The meeting attendees agreed that plants with less than 250 valves 

would be exempt from monthly monitoring of valves and the QIP 

provisions. 

Repaired Valves Follow-up 

• The meeting attendees agreed that valves must be monitored for two 

successive months following repair if a process unit is in the QIP 

program for valves and has more than 2% leaking valves. The 

meeting attendees agreed that valves must be monitored once within 

the first quarter after repair if the process unit is monitoring 

valves quarterly, semi-annually, or annually, or if the process 

unit is in a QIP program for valves and has less than 2% leaking 

valves. 

Applicability to BTX Units 

• In addition to its discussion for phasing BTX units into the 

negotiated regulation, API submitted suggested language addressing 

the applicability of the negotiated standard to BTX units (see 

Attachment 6). 

No Detectable Emissions 

• The EPA agreed that it had insufficient data to revise the "no 

detectable emissions" limit, currently 500 ppmv. The meeting 

attendees agreed that a definition of "no detectable emissions" 

was unnecessary for the negotiated regulation and that the term 

could be deleted from the regulation. 

Batch Processes 

• For clarification purposes, the meeting attendees were informed 

that batch process units have two options for complying with the 

negotiated regulation: (1) pressure testing; and (2) compliance 

with the basic standard for continuous processes. 

• For clarification purposes, the meeting attendees agreed that all 

reconfigurations of equipment have to be monitored even if another 

reconfiguration occurred within the previous 30 days. 

Flanges 

Draft Rule 

The concept of "extremely inaccessible flanges" was introduced. 

As an example, CMA cited flanges that are located in piping that 

straddles two distillation columns that may be over 100 feet tall. 

The meeting attendees agreed that flanges more than two meters 

above a support surface and that cannot be reached by a 25-feet 

portable platform are exempt from the standard. 

The EPA agreed to submit a revised copy of the draft rule to all 

Committee members during the week of August 27, 1990. 
P.10 

ATTACHMENT 1 

August 23 Meeting 

Discussion Point Checklist 

What do the parties need to see before signing the Agreement? 

-Should there be an initial, tentative Agreement on the rule and a 

final Agreement after the preamble is available? 

Methodology for staggered implementation of HON 

CMA response to alternative proposals 

Pumps 

Separate Phase III action levels for food/medical and monomer 

service pumps 

Phase III leak definition for general duty pumps 

QIP: require replacement of 20% of pumps each year with 

proven effective technology 

Valve QIP 

Period for opting into QIP 

Demonstration of further progress 

Schedule for performance trials and valve replacement 

Exemption of small corporations from performance trials 

Alternative means of emission limitation 

Handle now or outside the agreement 

Credits for valves removed from service 

Criterion for sources only subject to valve LDAR program 

Valves or components 

Repaired valves followup 

Applicability to BTX units 

No detectable emissions 

Batch Processes 
P.11 

August 23 Meeting 

Additional Discussion Points 

Valves 

• QIP - Availability of findings 

Sunset on performance trials 

Pumps 

• Basis for calculation of the performance level: average of 2, 3, or ? 

months. 

• Delay of repair provisions 

• QIP 

- Schedule for performance trials and pump replacements 

- Minimum number of pumps in the performance trials 

_ Criteria for exiting QIP 

Flanges 

• Extremely inaccessible 
P.12 

ATTACHMENT 2 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WORKGROUP ATTENDEES 

CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS OF VOCs FROM EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

ATTENDEES LIST FOR MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 1990 

NAME AFFILIATION 

Philip Harter Facilitator 

Ellen Siegler API 

Larry Goodheart Chevron/API 

Jan Meyer s SDB/EPA 

Ed Moretti Radian Corp 

Bob Ajax EPA 

Cheryl Sutterfield PMA 

Bob Rowland PMA 

Harvel M. Rogers, Jr. Jefferson Co. 

Deb Dalton EPA 

Tom Kittleman DuPont (CMA) 

Karen Fidler CMA 

Kathy Bailey CMA 

Al Bickum IISRP 

Rick Colyer EPA 

David Doniger NRDC 
P.13 

ATTACHMENT 3 

METHODOLOGY FOR SORTING SOCMI 

PRODUCTION CATEGORIES INTO 

SUBGROUPS 

Purpose: 

The SOCMI List of production categories consists of 453 

chemicals. CMA deemed it necessary that the list be divided into 

subgroups so that the applicable (fugitive emissions, air toxics, 

etc.) regulations are gradually phased in. Thus all chemicals in 

Group I should be regulated first followed by the other groups. 

Instead of arbitrarily classifying chemicals into the subgroups, 

they must be sorted according to a logical methodology. 

Oblective: 

To develop a methodology for 

subgroups; and propose a CMA list 

Methodology: 

sorting SOCMI chemicals into 

A step-wise methodology used to arrive at subgroups of SOCMI 

production categories is presented below. 

Step 1: Start with the list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (Clean 

Air Act, proposed ammendments) and compare them to the 

IARC List of Chemicals (i.e. chemicals-evaluated for 

their carcinogenicity). Mark all the. organic HAPs on 

the IARC list. 

Result: Of the 149 organic 

chemicals) only 99 

Fifty (50) others are 

HAPs (out of 191 total 

appear on the IARC List 

unlisted. 

Step 2: Sort the 99 common chemicals into IARC "Weight of 

Evidence" classes: 1 - Human Carcinogens; 2A - Probable 

Human Carcinogens; 2B - Possible Human Carcinogens; 3 -

Insufficient Data to Determine Carcinogenicity; and 4 -

Unclassified or Probably Not Human Carcinogens. 

Result: Class 1 

Class 2A 

Class 2B 

Class 3 

Four chemicals (Benzene, 

Benzidine, Vinyl Chloride, and 

4-Aminobiphenyl). 4-Aminobiphenyl in not on the SOCMI 

List. 

7 not included 

list. 

12 not included 

list, 

including Xylene 

14 chemicals 

on the SOCMI 

39 chemicals 

on the SOCMI 

7 chemicals 

and isomers, 1,2-Epoxybutane, 

Toluene, and Phenol. 1,2-

Epoxybutane is not included on 

the SOCMI list. 
P.M 

Class 4 - 35 chemicals. 9 not included 

on the SOCMI list^ 

Step 3: Form the first group (Group I) starting with the Class 

1 and Class 2A chemicals (i.e. 10 chemicals; excluding 

those that are not on the SOCMI list). Add other 

chemicals (upto 100) in Group I based on the use 

pattern (or progression) of the 10 chemicals. Select 

derivatives of Benzene (Class 1), Ethylene Oxide (Class 

2A), etc., based on Industrial Organic Chemical Use 

Trees1 that show the use patterns of chemicals. These 

Trees also include all 453 chemicals that are on the 

SOCMI list. 

Result: With the inclusion of chemicals derived from 

Benzene (55), Formaldehyde (9), Ethylene 

Oxide (30), Propylene Oxide (8) and others 

(8), the total consists of 110 production 

categories. Anilinic and Phenolic 

derivatives are excluded. Bis (Chloromethyl ) 

Ether is a confirmed carcinogen according to 

EPA and is added to the list. Thus, Group I 

consists of 111 chemicals. 

Step 4: Form Group II starting with the Class 2B chemicals 

(i.e. 27 chemicals; excluding those that are not 

included on the SOCMI list). Add other chemicals 

according to the use patterns (as outlined in Step 3) 

of the 27 chemicals. 

Result: Seven of the initial 27 chemicals were 

included in Group I through Step 3. With the 

inclusion of other chemicals derived from 

1,3-Butadiene (11), Acetaldehyde (52), 

Ethylene Dichloride (21), and others (16), 

Group II consists of 100 production 

categories. 

Step 5: Form Group III starting with the 6 chemicals in Class 

3, excluding 1,2-Epoxybutane which is not on the SOCMI 

list. Add other chemicals according to the use 

patterns (as outlined in Step 3) of the 6 chemicals. 

Add other chemicals from Class 4 to increase the size 

to approximately 100. 

Result: With the inclusion of other chemicals derived 

from Phenol (26), Toluene (46), and Xylene 

(19), the total adds up to 91. Although 

Aniline is in Class 4 on the IARC list, it is 

Radian Corporation, Industrial Organic Chemical Use 

Trees. DCN 83-211-030-09-08, Prepared for USEPA 

(Contract No. 68-03-3038-SBR09 ), October 1983. 
P.15 

a suspected carcinogen according to EPA. 

With the addition of Anilinic derivatives 

(21), Group III consists of 112 production 

categories. 

Step 6: Form Group IV out of the remaining Class 4 chemicals 

and the remaining chemicals out of the 50 organic HAPs 

unlisted in the IARC list and their-derivatives. 

Result: Of the 26 chemicals in Class 4, 16 of them 

have been included in Groups I, II, and III. 

Of the 50 unlisted chemicals, 11 are not on 

the SOCMI list and 24 have been included in 

previous Groups I, II, and III. With the 

inclusion of the remaining chemicals in Class 

4 and their derivatives (10), and the 

remaining unlisted chemicals and their 

derivatives (52), Group IV consists of 62 

production categories. 

Step 7: Form Group V out of the remaining production categories 

on the SOCMI list. 

Result: Group V consists of 68 remaining production 

categories. 

Summary: 

A methodology that sorts the SOCMI list into five groups has 

been presented. By following this methodology, the five groups 

consist of 111, 100, 112, 62, and 68 production categories, 

respectively. The proposed regulations must be phased-in first 

for the production categories in Group I, followed by Groups II, 

III, IV, and V in sequence. 
P.16 

Attachment 4 

PUMPS 

Phase. 

Phase II 

10,000 ppm 

LDAR 

5,000 ppm 

LDAR 

Phase III 

General Pumps 

Monthly LDAR 

>10%or3 

(6 month rolling 

avg. at 1,000 ppm) 

(repair at 2,000 ppm) 

Full QIP 

20% Replacement 

per year 

Food/Medical 

Monthly. LDAR 

>10%or3 

(6 month rolling 

avg. at 2,000 ppm) 

QIP 

No Replacement 

Polymerizing Monomers 

Monthly. LDAR 

>10%or3 

(6 month rolling 

avg. at 5,000 ppm) 
P.17 

Attachment 5 

PUMPS 

Phase! Phase ll Phase III 

10,000 ppm 

LDAR 

Monthly 

5,000 ppm 

LDAR 

Monthly 

Promulgation 

+ 3 months 

EOY-1 EOY-2 

EOY = EndofYear 

EOY-3 EOY-4 EOY-5 EOY-6 

i Ql Large plants Install 

superior equipment In general-duty 

pumps (20% per year) 

i Ql Analyze Data 

• large plants perform trials 

on 10% or 3 (whichever 

Is less) pumps 

• <10% or <3 pumps, or 

• Quality 

Improvement (Ql) 

• collect data 
P.18 

• 1 

ATTACHMENT 6 

American Petroleum Institute 

1220 L Street, Northwest 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

202-682-8000 9 

HAND DELIVERED 

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: August 22, 1990 

TO: HVOC Fugitives Regulatory Negotiations Committee 

FROM: Larry Goodheart 

SUBJECT: Scope of Regulation: Refinery BTX Units 

An issue relating to the scope of the negotiated regulation 

is whether processes at refineries that produce chemicals such as 

benzene, toluene, and xylene will be subject to the regulation. 

API has opposed the inclusion of these processes, but EPA has 

insisted that they be included and has taken the position that 

this issue is non-negotiable. 

If EPA makes a final unilateral decision to include these 

processes within the scope of the regulation, API suggests that 

this be expressed in the regulatory language as follows: (1) the 

"Applicability" section of the regulation should provide that no 

processes at refineries will be covered by the regulation with 

the exception of "synthetic organic chemical processes"; and (2) 

"synthetic organic chemical processes" should be defined as 

"process units whose sole purpose is to produce pure chemicals, 

such as benzene, toluene, or xylene as final chemical products, 

as is done in operations conducted by members of the Synthetic 

Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association ('SOCMA')." 

An equal opportunity employer