Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0730-0183
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 AB Mauri on the Proposed Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0730

Summary
AB Mauri participated in a meeting with the EPA on February 2, 2017, to discuss the proposed rule revision of removing brew ethanol monitoring from 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
 Marguerite McLamb, EPA
 James Parker, AB Mauri - VP of the Fermentation Process 
 Bryan Keyt, Bryan Cave LLC - AB Mauri Counsel
 Brandon Long, ERG
 James Chesnut, ERG

Agenda
AB Mauri provided the following questions to EPA:
Brew Ethanol Monitoring
 Would EPA explain the significance of removing the previous acknowledgement that the brew ethanol monitoring represented a parametric CEMS?
 Would EPA expand on the circumstances, information and/or incidents that led to its proposal to remove brew ethanol monitoring as a compliance methodology? Two yeast manufacturers are currently using this method in various forms.
 In EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0730-0004, would EPA explain:
 Why a brew ethanol concentration at "the higher end of the range" was used to generate data for Table 2, rather than the brew ethanol average (BAE)?
 Why the black dashed lines in Figures 1, 2 and 3 which are to represent the emissions limits for each stage, are not at the actual limits for each stage.
 Figure 1 has the dashed line at approximately 270 ppm, rather than 300 ppm.
 Figure 2 has the dashed line at approximately 175 ppm, rather than 200 ppm.
 Figure 3 has the dashed line at 85 ppm, rather than at 100 ppm.
 In the proposed rule, AB Mauri would have to purchase and install an alternative to brew ethanol monitoring at both a considerable capital and increased operating expense.
 What additional data is EPA seeking to justify the continued use of brew ethanol monitoring, and how will it affect final rule (81 Fed Reg 95828)?
 Under what circumstances would EPA continue to allow the use of brew ethanol monitoring?
 Would EPA clarify the expected capital costs detailed in Table 2-1 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2015 - 0730-0005? Does the cost estimate cover installation of CEMS for one fermenter or seven fermenters?
 Would EPA provide the actual CEMS Cost Model  -  3/07/07 used to estimate the costs detailed for AB Mauri?
 In the proposed rule, while all yeast manufacturers subject to the rule would have RATA expenses, only AB Mauri has the potential for up front capital costs and an increase in CEMS costs. As the EPA has asked for comment associated with the continued use of brew ethanol monitoring, how will EPA distinguish comments from commenters which could be given from an anti-competitive, rather than scientific or legal basis?
 In working with the ABA, it is clear that all manufacturing plants experience significant issues with their FID CEMS and some have expressed interest in changing to alternate technologies. Will EPA consider alternative monitoring devices or methods? What is the process or methodology for approval? What is the timeframe for such approval?
 Should EPA conclude that brew ethanol monitoring must be replaced with an alternative CEMS, will EPA allow additional time above the one year proposed for AB Mauri to evaluate potential monitoring equipment, test potentially viable options and then purchase, install, validate and train personnel on the chosen equipment and methodology?
   
Specialty Yeast
 EPA comments that it recognizes that the yeast manufacturing industry is evolving and specialty yeast production has increased.
 Does EPA intend to update the definitions of the nutritional yeast category and the exclusion for specialty yeast to ensure that local regulators are uniformly applying the exclusions to reporting to all regulated sites?

Request for Extension of Comment Period 
 AB Mauri is requesting a 60-day extension of the comment period to allow for necessary and appropriate technical analysis and evaluation of the impacts of the proposed rule.

Summary
 Where applicable, EPA provided clarifications to the administrative record filed in the docket for the proposed rule.
 A revised Brew Ethanol memo (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0730-0004) and Cost memo (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0730-0005) will be posted to the docket.