p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1875 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 4 ) ll-E-2 2 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:44

AM Sheet 4 of 86P. 2 

# RADIA N A-90-1 9 ll-E-2 2

MEETIN GNOTE S MEMORANDU

M 

# X> till " " 2 TO : Ja n Meyer , EPA/SD B FROM : Bennet t King , Radia n DATE : Marc h13 , 199 1 ATTENDEES : Kath yBailey , CM

A Ki mBoudeaux , Ethy l Ke n Ettinger , Chevro n Lesli e Evans , EPA Kare n Fidler , CM

A W.C . Holbrook , B.F . Goodric h DEC I 8 199 2 IEkXfOk\ • k.C.k.k

Bennet t King , Radia n Jo e Ledvina , Vist a Ja nMeyer , EPA Bo bRosensteel , EPA Laszl o Takacs , Occidenta l Representative s o f th e Chemica l Manufacturers ' Associatio n (CMA ) an

d th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency' s (EPA's ) Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standard s (OAQPS ) me t t o discus s th e Hazardou s Organi c NESHAP (HON ) regulatorydevelopmen t program . Discussio n covere d th e point s o n th e attache d agenda , although di d no t strictl yfollowit . Th e discussio ni s summarize d below according t o th e following majo r areas :

Proces s Vent s Storag e Transfe r Maximu mAchievabl e Contro l Technology(MACT) : Ne w versu s Existing Majo r an

d Are a Source s Processe s Subjec t t o th e HON Source s Alread

ySubjec t t o Ne wSourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) an d Nationa l Emissio n Standar d Hazardou s Ai r Pollutan t (NESHAP ) Rule s Agenc yInformatio nNeed s Wastewate r discussion s wer e deferre d t o an alread yschedule d meeting fo r late r i n th e month . Proces s Vent s Th e EPAreiterate d tha t curren t applicabilit ycriteri a (cut

offs ) includ e flowrate , weigh t percen t concentration , an d hea t content . Tota l resourc e effectivenes s (TRE ) wil l als o nee d t o be considere d an

d wil l b e presente d t o EPAmanagement . Th e decisio n betwee n thes e tw o cut-of f type s (technica l versu s straigh t cos t effectiveness ) i s subjec t t o managemen t review . Th e EP A reiterate d tha t some segment s o f th e Agenc yar e sensitiv e t o MCH/01 6P. 3

using TR E becaus e i t s o heavil yemphasize s cos t effectiveness . Regardles s o f cut-off s selected , th e rule s ar e expecte d t o b e writte n similarl yt o NSP S distillatio noperations . Thi s approac h permit s th e us e o f alternativ e contro l technique s fo r achieving compliance , an

d doe s no t preclud e th e us e o f recoverydevice s t o ge t belo wapplicabilit ycut-off s an d avoi d th e installatio no f controls . Th e EPAclarifie d tha t decision s t o develo p options , concer n cut-of f level s (whichsource s nee d t o appl yadditiona l control) , no t selection s betwee ndifferen t contro l technologies . A s i n previou s proces s ven t rules , th e contro l technology reductio n requiremen t i s likel yt o b e 9 8 percen t tota l organi c carbo n (TOC ) les s methan e an d ethane . Th e basi s o f th e EPA' s technica l analysi s i s combustion— a contro l technologyknow nt o achiev e 9 8 percen t reductio no n a wid e rang e o f sources . Th e CM Aexpresse d concer n abou t multimedi a impact s (e.g. , soli d wast e an d wate r pollutio n impacts ) an d abou t th e productio n o f N0 Xan d C O a s a resul t o f combustion . Th e EPA state d tha t th e analysi s wil l quantif yN0 Xan d C O emission s an

d wil l conside r multimedi a impact s withi nth e limit s o f ou r knowledge . I t wa s discusse d tha t th e Proces s Vent s rul e mayappl yven t b yven t o r collectively . Th e EPAstate d tha t thi s decisio nhad no t ye t bee n made . Eithe r approac hwoul d us e th e cut-off s describe d earlier . Th e CM Aexpresse d a desir e fo r flexibilit yi n meeting th e 9 8 percen t reductio nrequiremen t i f a collectiv e ven t approac hwa s used . Th e EPAclarifie d tha t thi s rul e woul d cove r al l continuou s vents—reactor , distillation , an d ai r oxidation . However , EP A fel t tha t th e broad definitio n o f distillatio nvent s use d i nth e NSP S woul d ove r mos t an ytyp e o f ven t foun d i nSyntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturing Industry(SOCMI ) processes . I t woul d no t cove r batc hvents , startup/shutdow n operations , o r malfunctions . Th e CM Aexpresse d a desir e t o se e draf t impact s (e.g. , contro l cost s an d emissio n reductions ) fo r regulatory options . Th e benefi t woul d b e tha t CM Acoul d poin t ou t option s tha t woul d creat e undu e hardshi p fo r th e SOCMI . Th e drawbac k wa s tha t draf t regulatoryoption s ar e subjec t t o significan t chang e an d th e CM

Ashoul d no t ac t o nthem . I t wa s agree d tha t EPAwil l provid e draf t impact s fo r regulatoryoptions , subjec t t o managemen t approval , i n earl ysumme r (lat e June) . I t wa s als o note d tha t draf t option s mayno t b e availabl e unti l a late r dat e " du e t o ongoing debat e o n us e o f ris k i n MAC T decision s an d othe r issues . Storag e Th e EPAreiterate d tha t curren t applicabilit ycriteri a includ e storag e throughpu t an d vapo r pressure . Contro l MCH/01 6 2P. 4

technologie s ar e thos e foun d i n th e volatil e organi c liquid s (VOL ) Storag e NSPS . Th e EPAi s unawar e o f an yothe r universall y applicabl e mor e stringen t control s i n us e fo r tanks . Th e CM A agree d wit htha t conclusion . Again , decision s o ncontrol s wil l b e decision s o n th e siz e o f th e sourc e subjec t t o contro l requirements , no t selectio nbetwee ndifferen t contro l technologies . Th e CM Aexpresse d a concer nove r d e minimi s cutoff s fo r applicabilit yo f th e standard s t o mixture s o f hazardou s ai r pollutan t (HAP ) an d non-HAP chemicals . Mor e specifically , trac e amount s o f a HAP ca n ofte nb e foun d i n non-HAP finishe d product s ( a smal l amoun t o f benzen e i s foun d i n linea r alky l benzene) . Th e CM Awante d t o kno wwhethe r EPAwa s considering a minimu mHAP concentratio n fo r mixtures . Th e EPAresponde d tha t thi s issu e woul d b e considered . Transfe r Th e EPAsummarize d th e technica l analysi s approac huse d fo r th e Transfe r project : Sectio n 11 4 request s wer e sen t t o SOCM I facilities ; base d o n tha t information , transfe r allocatio n factor s wer e develope d fo r railcars , tank trucks , an d marine , vessels ; mode l facilit ytransfe r rack s wer e developed . According t o th e EPA , th e presen t estimate s o f transfe r emission s ar e les s tha n 20 0 Mg/yr an

d controlling themi s probabl yno t a s cos t effectiv e a s contro l o f othe r sources . Th e HONwil l cove r tank truck s an d railca r transfer , no t marin e vesse l transfer . However , marin e vesse l transfe r cos t impact s wil l b e considere d i n th e economi c impact s analysis . Marin e vesse l transfe r wil l b e covere d unde r anothe r program , an d th e HONrule s wil l cit e tha t rulemaking . Th e HONwil l no t cove r drumming processes . Th e CM Ahad th e same concer nwit hmixture s unde r th e transfe r projec t a s theydi d unde r th e storag e project . Th e EP A agree d t o conside r thi s issu e unde r thi s projec t a s well . Th e CM Aexpresse d a desir e fo r a concentratio n cut-of f t o exclud e recordkeeping a s wel l a s th e nee d t o instal l controls . Th e CM Abrough t up th e issu e tha t connect s an d disconnect s o f loading pipe s wer e regulate d unde r th e viny l chlorid e NESHAP bu t no t unde r th e benzen e NESHAP . The yexpresse d a concer ntha t thi s issu e shoul d b e addresse d i n th e HON . Th e EPAagree d t o conside r thi s i n th e rulemaking . Maximu mAchievabl e Contro l Technology : Ne wVersu s Existing Th e MAC T decision s wil l b e mad e fo r bot hne wan d existing sources . Depending o n th e MAC T floor s fo r ne wan d existing sources , thos e decision s mayresul t i nth e same o r differen t MCH/01 6 3P. 5

requirement s fo r ne wan d existing sources . Th e EPAexplaine d th e basi s o f th e MAC T floor s fo r ne wan d existing source s an d tha t differen t floor s ar e wha t ca ndriv e EPAt o mak e differen t MAC T decision s fo r ne wan d existing sources . Th e MAC T floor s ar e being develope d using existing federa l an d Stat e regulation s a s a surrogat e fo r actua l informatio n o nal l sources . Fromthi s regulatio n review , contro l technologyan d applicabilit ycriteri a level s wil l b e selected . Th e EPAstate d that , base d o n thei r analysi s s o far , contro l technologie s ar e th e same fo r ne wan d existing sources . Majo r an

d Are a Source s Th e CM Arequeste d clarificatio n a s t o whethe r th e HONwil l appl yt o bot hmajo r an d are a source s o r onl ymajo r sources . Th e EPAresponde d tha t base d o n thei r characterizatio no f th e SOCMI , n o are a source s ar e currentl yincluded . Furthe r informatio n concerning are a source s shoul d b e collecte d during th e publi c commen t perio d o n th e Federa l Registe r publicatio no f th e Sourc e CategoryList . Thi s informatio n wil l b e use d t o verif yo r chang e EPA' s curren t position . Th e EPAstate d furthe r tha t th e HONcoul d possibl yb e applie d t o are a source s b yshowing are a source s hav e a nadvers e healt haffect . Thi s i s stil l unde r consideration . Advers e healt haffect s ca n b e demonstrate d b yon e o f tw o ways : (1 ) characterizatio n o f HAP emission s alon e indicat e a n advers e healt heffect , o r (2 ) performa n analysi s t o determin e advers e healt haffects . Th e EPAals o mentione d th e lesse r quantit ycut-off s whic h ar e se t fo r HAP's . Thes e ar e typicall yverysmal l an d wil l designat e mos t source s emitting thema s majo r sources . A definit e approac hha s no t bee ndetermine d fo r addressing thi s issue . Processe s Subjec t t o th e HON Th e EPAclarifie d tha t th e HONwil l cove r th e productio no f chemical s marke d wit ha "Y " o n th e NAPCTAC lis t o f 66 3 chemicals . I t wa s als o pointe d ou t tha t some mistake s exis t o nth e NAPCTAC lis t an d i t shoul d no t b e considere d final . Th e EPAha s no t decide d th e rul e wil l indicat e whic hSOCM I chemical s ar e subjec t t o th e HON . Source s Alread

ySubjec t t o NSP S an d NESHAP Rule s Th e CM Aexpresse d thei r desir e tha t source s alread ysubjec t t o NSP S o r NESHAP rule s no t b e force d t o compl ywit htw o set s o f recordkeeping/reporting requirement s and/o r contro l requirements . EPAagree d tha t thi s wa s a n unnecessaryburde n an d step s woul d b e take n t o eliminat e thi s situation . MCH/01 6 4P. 6

SUGGESTE D AGEND

AFO R3/13/9 1 MEETIN

GBETWEE NCM

AAN D EPA
I . Revie wan

d Discus s CM

AComment s onth e Hazardou s Organi c NESHAP a t January29-31 , 199 1 NAPCTAC Meeting II . Discus s Issue s Relate d t o EPA' s Approac hfo r Developing MAC T Standard s for : Proces s Vent s Transfe r Operation s Storag e Tank s III . Discus s Applicabilit yCriteri a IV . Identif yAdditiona l Informatio n Need s V . Discus s Nex t Step s

MCH/01 6P. 7

Nam e Bennet t Kin g Laszl o Takac s Jo e Ledvin a Lesli e Evan s Ja n Meye r Bo bRosenstee l Ki mBoudeau x W.C . Holbroo k Kare n Fidle r Ke n Ettinge r KathyBaile y ATTENDEE S Compan y Radia n Occidenta l Vist a EP A EP A EP A Ethy l B.F . Goodric h CMA Chevro n Chemica l CMA Telephon e Numbe r (91 9 (71 6 (71 3 (91 9 (91 9 (91 9 (50 4 (21 6 (20 2 (41 5 (20 2 ) 541-910 0 ) 286-310 3 588-344 6 I 541-541 0 541-525 4 | 541-560 8 | 388-777 6 I 447-7925 | 887-117 6 ) 842-588 0 ) 887-118 6

MCH/01 6