Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0730-0184
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2017-02-09T05:00Z

TO:	John Bradfield, U.S. EPA/OAQPS/SPPD  -  Natural Resources Group

FROM:	Eastern Research Group, Inc.

DATE:	February 8, 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	February 2, 2017 Meeting Between the EPA and the Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing Industry on the Proposed Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0730

Summary
The American Baker's Association (ABA) and representatives of nutritional yeast manufacturing facilities participated in a meeting with the EPA on February 2, 2017, to discuss the proposed rule revisions to the Nutritional Yeast NESHAP (40 CFR, part 63, subpart CCCC). This memo presents the participants, agenda, and summary of the meeting. 

Participants
 John Bradfield, EPA
 Bill Schrock, EPA
 Robin Dunkins, EPA
 Nora Greenglass, EPA
 Chris Sarsony, EPA
 Rasma Zvaners, ABA - Policy Director
 Max Williamson, Williamson Law & Policy - ABA Counsel
 Chris Kaltenbach, Red Star/Lesaffre - Red Star Counsel 
 James Parker, AB Mauri - VP of the Fermentation Process 
 Bryan Keyt, Bryan Cave LLC -AB Mauri Counsel
 Gary Edwards, American Yeast/Lallemand - President of the American Yeast plant in Memphis, TN
 Jean Francois Lejeune, American Yeast/Lallemand  -  Director of Operations for the American Yeast plant in Memphis, TN
 Richard Ames, Minn-Dak - Operations Manager of the Minn-Dak Yeast Plant in Wahpeton, ND
 Brandon Long, ERG
 James Chesnut, ERG

Agenda
The ABA provided the following questions to EPA:
Emissions Standard  
 ABA appreciates RTR conclusions of no technology change or residual risk.
 Without discussing any particular facility that is currently using brew ethanol monitoring, can you please explain EPA's rationale for proposing to delete the use of that methodology?
 Are the old and new form of standard equivalent, or is EPA making the standard more stringent than 2001 MACT?
 In the proposed rule, a facility will have two options for its compliance demonstration: 
          100% compliance for all batches over a rolling 12-month period.  The standard now is 98%. -- How has EPA shown that this is attainable?
          Average VOC concentrations over a 12-month are subject to "5 percent discounted" limits. -- Could EPA please discuss justification for discount and clarify the "5% discount" in a practical example?
 Will EPA consider a phase-in period?

Cumulative Effect of Proposed Revisions
 The industry is confident that the cumulative impact of eliminating malfunctions, requiring that all (not 98%) of batches meet the emissions limits, the requirement of qualified CEMS data from each (not 75%) of the batch hours and a potential 5% reduction in emissions limits, there is significantly increased likelihood of non-compliance and the potential of enforcement action.
 Would EPA explain why these compounding effects have been included in the proposed revision, even when EPA has deemed:
          Accepted that the risks from the Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast source category are acceptable (81 Fed. Reg. at 95825); 
          Deemed that no additional technology are necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (81 Fed. Reg. at 95825); and
          Determined that it is not necessary to set a more stringent HAP standard to prevent adverse environmental effect. (81 Fed. Reg. at 95825.)

Economic Impact
 EPA evaluated the impact of compliance with the proposed NESHAP revisions as a proportion of the sales of the ultimate parent company.  
 Would EPA explain why the basis should not be site or location based as companies evaluate profitability, allocate production volumes and investment by site location?

Discussion of SSM
 Does EPA feel that removal of malfunction is compelled by court decisions?  In the Yeast MACT, the emissions standard contains flexibility allowing some batches to be disregarded in recognition of the inherent variability of the regulated process, which is continuous control.
 Could EPA clarify its expectation on how periods of malfunction will be addressed if the malfunction provision is eliminated?  
 How does the rule distinguish between process malfunctions and CEMs malfunction?
 Is a batch with unexpected variability considered a process malfunction, and how is process variability considered in the emissions standard if the 2% exemption is removed?
 Under the proposed rule, what is the specific documentation that would be required if there is a malfunction?
 What happens with the Malfunction Plan (e.g., in Title V permit) that must currently be maintained?

Monitoring 
 What monitoring instrumentation and logging times are envisioned?
 What missing data policies will apply if instrumentation fails or other monitoring "deviation"?  Would this result in non-compliance?
 Will EPA recognize estimates based on recipe for missing data for batch hours?
 What are expectations for QC and RATA?

Additional Data
 What additional data is EPA seeking, and how will it affect final rule?

Rule Trajectory
 Does EPA anticipate the timeframe changing in the new Administration?
 Have Sierra Club and others in the deadline suit expressed positions on any of these issues?
 ABA intends to request an additional 60-day extension for the public comment period due to uncertain technical issues.

Summary
 Where applicable, EPA provided clarifications to the administrative record filed in the docket for the proposed rule.