Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0016-0021
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-08-29T04:00Z

MEMORANDUM
Date:
June
30,
2003
Subject:
Summary
of
the
April
28,
2003
Meeting
Between
the
EPA
and
the
Chlorine
Institute
to
Discuss
Issues
Associated
with
the
Chlorine
Production
Industry
Proposed
Action
From:
Heather
P.
Brown,
EC/
R
Phil
Norwood,
EC/
R
To:
Iliam
Rosario,
EPA/
OAQPS/
ESD/
MG
The
purpose
of
this
memorandum
is
to
summarize
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
meeting
on
April
28,
2003,
with
representatives
of
the
Chlorine
Institute
(
CI)
and
companies
that
own
or
operate
chlor­
alkali
plants.
The
meeting
was
held
by
teleconference.
The
purpose
of
the
meeting
was
to
discuss
the
comments
received
on
the
July
3,
2002,
proposed
decision
not
to
regulate
the
source
category
(
67
FR
44713)
and
EPA's
options
for
responding
to
the
comments,
and
any
data
needed
to
assist
EPA
in
making
decisions.

DATE
AND
LOCATION
April
28,
2003
2:
00
p.
m.
­
4:
00
p.
m.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
Held
via
teleconference.

ATTENDEES
The
conference
call
was
attended
by
EPA
representatives,
EPA's
contractor
(
EC/
R
Incorporated),
and
members
of
the
Chlorine
Institute.
The
individuals
who
participated
in
the
meeting
as
well
as
their
affiliations,
are
listed
below.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
Steve
Fruh,
Metals
Group
Iliam
Rosario,
Metals
Group
3
EC/
R
Incorporated
Heather
Brown
Phil
Norwood
Chlorine
Institute
See
Table
1.

SUMMARY
OF
DISCUSSION
The
following
provides
a
summary
of
the
discussion.
This
summary
is
organized
by
topic
and
does
not
always
represent
the
chronology
of
the
discussion.

Background
Mr.
Fruh
welcomed
everyone
to
the
conference
call.
He
introduced
himself
as
the
new
Group
Leader
for
the
Metals
Group
and
explained
the
purpose
of
the
conference
call.
Mr.
Fruh
explained
that
the
conference
call
was
intended
to
provide
an
opportunity
to
share
with
industry
some
issues
that
were
raised
on
the
proposed
action,
preliminary
EPA
thoughts
and
any
areas
where
additional
information
from
industry
would
be
needed.

Mr.
Norwood,
with
EC/
R,
provided
a
brief
background
of
the
project.
On
July
3,
2002,
under
the
authority
of
section
112(
d)(
4),
EPA
proposed
not
to
regulate
the
chlorine
production
source
category
(
67
FR
44672).
This
decision
was
based
on
an
analysis
which
showed
that
chlorine
and
hydrochloric
acid
emissions
from
the
chlor­
alkali
process
did
not
result
in
human
exposures
above
the
defined
health
thresholds
and
they
are
the
only
pollutants
emitted
from
the
category
(
other
than
mercury,
which
is
being
addressed
under
a
separate
action).

Comments/
Issues
Mr.
Norwood
referred
to
comments
that
EPA
received
on
the
proposed
action
and
categorized
the
adverse
comments
into
two
areas:
(
1)
EPA's
statutory
authority
under
section
112(
d)(
4);
and
(
2)
EPA's
approach
for
the
risk
assessment.

EPA's
approach
for
the
risk
assessment.
Although
there
were
a
few
comments
regarding
EPA's
risk
assessment
approach,
one
specific
comment
of
note
was
that
for
the
chronic
assessment,
commenters
said
that
it
was
not
appropriate
to
assume
that
all
chlorine
emitted
to
the
atmosphere
would
photolyze
to
HCl.
EPA
revised
the
risk
assessment
and
assumed
that
no
chlorine
would
be
converted
to
HCl
EPA's
statutory
authority
under
section
112(
d)(
4).
The
primary
comment
was
that
EPA
did
not
have
the
statutory
authority
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
make
a
decision
not
to
regulate
an
4
entire
source
category.
Mr.
Fruh
indicated
that
this
argument
had
merit,
and
he
referred
to
a
portion
of
the
statutory
language
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
that
states
"...
when
establishing
standards
under
this
subsection...,"
which
indicates
that
standards
should
be
set
under
section
112(
d)(
4),
rather
than
making
a
decision
not
to
regulate.
Mr.
Dungan
with
the
Chlorine
Institute
(
CI)
expressed
some
confusion
at
the
fact
that
potential
problems
with
using
this
subsection
did
not
come
up
until
now.
Mr.
Donovan,
also
with
CI,
and
Mr.
Tenzer,
with
General
Electric,
agreed
with
EPA's
concern
about
the
legal
defensibility
of
not
regulating
the
category
would
be
legally
defensible
should
they
be
sued.

As
CI
pointed
out
in
their
comment
letter,
the
risk
assessment
prepared
for
the
proposed
action
could
also
be
used
under
section
112(
c)(
9)
to
delist
the
source
category.
However,
using
section
112(
c)(
9)
to
delist
the
source
category
was
not
proposed
in
the
original
action
as
an
option.
Mr.
Fruh
expressed
some
concern
regarding
EPA's
legal
jeopardy
because
using
section
112(
c)(
9)
was
not
proposed.
Mr.
Fruh
further
stated
that
according
to
the
statute,
a
petition
to
delist
was
required
and
had
not
been
received.
Mr.
Shipley,
with
the
American
Chemistry
Counsil
(
ACC),
stated
his
interpretation
that
EPA
can
utilize
the
provisions
under
section
112(
c)(
9)
without
a
petition.

Mr.
Fruh
also
stated
that
the
ecological
impacts
analysis
performed
for
the
proposed
decision
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
may
not
be
sufficient
for
delisting
under
section
112(
c)(
9).
According
to
Mr.
Tanzer,
the
statute
is
unclear
about
how
detailed
an
ecological
impact
analysis
has
to
be
and
that
it
is
possible
that
the
one
already
performed
would
be
sufficient.

The
CI
asked
if
it
would
be
beneficial
for
them
to
submit
a
petition
for
delisting.
Mr.
Fruh
responded
that
he
would
need
to
discuss
with
EPA
management
to
find
out
whether
that
would
be
necessary.

Another
commenter
stated
that
EPA
could
set
a
standard
at
a
level
below
the
MACT
floor
that
would
provide
and
maintain
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
Mr.
Fruh
stated
that
this
option
may
be
the
most
defensible
from
a
legal
standpoint.
Personnel
from
CI
raised
several
concerns
regarding
this
option,
including
concerns
about:

°
the
costs
of
implementing
a
standard
even
at
below
the
floor
levels;
°
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements;
°
having
to
provide
certifications
required
under
title
V;
and
°
the
risk
of
violations.

Mr.
Dungan
suggested
that
EPA
publish
a
supplemental
notice
and
allow
the
industry
to
review
and
comment
on
the
standard.
Mr.
Fruh
pointed
out
that
this
rule
is
under
the
consent
decree
to
be
finalized
on
August
31
so
there
would
not
be
time
to
prepare
a
supplemental
notice.
Mr.
Dungan
stated
that
CI
would
need
to
consider
the
feasibility
of
a
standard
and
indicated
that
associated
costs
would
be
a
concern.
5
Action
Items
The
following
action
items
were
agreed
upon:
°
EPA
agreed
to
find
out
whether
a
petition
to
delist
would
be
required
in
order
to
proceed
with
a
section
112(
c)(
9)
delisting
action.
°
CI
agreed
to
confer
on
the
feasibility
of
a
standard
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
and
provide
a
response
within
two
days.
ATTACHMENT
1
Meeting
Handout
for
April
28,
2003
Conference
Call
7
EPA
MEETING
WITH
CHLORINE
INSTITUTE
Status
of
the
Chlorine
Production
Source
Category
April
28,
2003
BACKGROUND
Under
the
authority
of
section
112(
d)(
4),
EPA
proposed
not
to
regulate
the
chlorine
production
source
category
(
67
FR
44672)
because
chlorine
and
hydrochloric
acid
emissions
from
the
chlor­
alkali
process
did
not
result
in
human
exposures
above
the
defined
health
thresholds
and
they
are
the
only
pollutant
emitted
from
the
category
(
other
than
mercury,
which
is
being
addressed
under
a
separate
action).

COMMENTS/
ISSUES
Adverse
comments
that
were
received
can
generally
be
separated
into
two
areas:

!
EPA
does
not
have
the
statutory
authority
under
112(
d)(
4)
to
make
a
decision
to
not
regulate
an
entire
source
category.

!
Comments
on
the
risk
assessment.
One
specific
comment
of
note
was
that
for
the
chronic
assessment,
it
was
not
appropriate
to
assume
that
all
chlorine
emitted
to
the
atmosphere
would
photolyze
to
HCl.

!
Based
on
these
comments
we
have
identified
three
possible
courses
of
action:
Option
1:
Finalize
the
decision
not
to
regulate
as
proposed,
using
the
authority
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
Option
2:
Use
section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)(
ii)
to
delist
the
source
category.
Option
3:
Set
a
standard
for
chlorine
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
at
a
level
that
provides
an
ample
margin
of
safety.

POSSIBLE
STANDARDS
UNDER
OPTION
3
!
Based
on
a
preliminary
analysis
of
available
data
!
Choice
of
complying
with
a
99­
percent
chlorine
emission
reduction
OR
25­
ppm
chlorine
concentration
limit
(
applies
to
vents,
tanks,
and
transfer
operations
from
chlor­
alkali
and
direct
synthesis
HCl
production
processes)

!
Uncontrolled
streams
with
concentration
less
than
25
ppm
"
document
or
demonstrate
concentration
below
the
concentration
limit
"
continuous
monitoring
would
not
be
required
!
Controlled
stream
with
control
device
inlet
concentration
greater
than
25
ppm
"
document
and/
or
demonstrate
­
99­
percent
reduction
requirement;
or
­
control
device
outlet
concentration
less
than
25
ppm
"
a
performance
test
and
parametric
monitoring
would
be
required
!
Facility­
specific
LDAR
program
would
be
required
for
equipment
leaks
!
No
standards
for
wastewater
!
No
standards
for
HCl
emissions
QUESTIONS
!
What
kind
of
parameters
are
currently
being
monitored
or
tracked?
8
!
What
type
of
LDAR
program
are
they
currently
doing?

!
What
level
of
control
is
being
achieved
for
existing
control
devices?