76408 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6899–9]

RIN 2060–AH68

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic

Maximum Achievable Control

Technology

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

SUMMARY: This action proposes

amendments to the ‘‘generic’’ maximum

achievable control technology (MACT)

standards to add national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP) for four additional source

categories: Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing, Carbon Black

Production, Ethylene Production, and

Spandex Production. The generic MACT

standards provide a structural

framework allowing source categories

with similar emission types and MACT

control requirements to be covered

under one subpart, thus promoting

regulatory consistency in NESHAP

development. The EPA has identified

these four source categories as major

sources of hazardous air pollutants

(HAP), including cyanide compounds,

acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, carbonyl

sulfide, carbon disulfide, benzene, 1,3

butadiene, toluene, and 2,4 toluene

diisocyanate (TDI). Benzene is a known

human carcinogen, and 1,3 butadiene is

considered to be a probable human

carcinogen. The other pollutants can

cause noncancer health effects in

humans. These proposed standards will

implement section 112(d) of the Clean

Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major

sources to meet HAP emission standards

reflecting the application of MACT.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on

or before February 5, 2001.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by December 26, 2000, a public

hearing will be held on January 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written

comments should be submitted (in

duplicate if possible) to: Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), Attention Docket Number

A–97–17, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460. All technical

comments pertaining solely to

individual source categories should be

submitted to the dockets established for

the individual source categories (see

Docket for individual docket numbers).

The EPA requests a separate copy also

be sent to Mr. Mark Morris (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at the EPA’s Office

of Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina, beginning

at 10:00 a.m.

Docket. Docket No. A–97–17 contains

supporting information used in

developing the generic MACT

standards. Dockets established for each

of the source categories proposed to be

assimilated under the generic MACT

standards with this proposal include:

Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing

(Docket No. A–2000–14), Carbon Black

Production (Docket No. A–98–10),

Ethylene Production (Docket No. A–98–

22), and Spandex Production (Docket

No. A–98–25). These dockets include

source category-specific supporting

information. All dockets are located at

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Waterside Mall,

Room M–1500, Ground Floor, 401 M

Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, and

may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning the proposed

NESHAP, contact the following at the

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711:

Information type Contact Group Phone/facsimile/e-mail address

General ............................................ Mark Morris .................................. Organic Chemicals Group ............ (919) 541–5416/(919) 541–3470/

morris.mark @epa.gov.

Cyanide chemicals manufacturing .. Keith Barnett ................................ Organic Chemicals Group ............ (919) 541–5605/(919) 541–3470/

barnett.keith @epa.gov.

Carbon black production ................. John Schaefer .............................. Organic Chemicals Group ............ (919) 541–0296/(919) 541–3470/

schaefer.john @epa.gov.

Ethylene production ........................ Warren Johnson ........................... Organic Chemicals Group ............ (919) 541–5267/(919) 541–3470/

johnson.warren @epa.gov.

Spandex production ........................ Elaine Manning ............................ Waste and Chemical Processes

Group.

(919) 541–5499/(919) 541–3470/

manning.elaine @epa.gov.

Public hearing ................................. Maria Noell ................................... Organic Chemicals Group ............ (919) 541–5607/(919) 541–3470/

noell.maria @epa.gov.

SUPLLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments

Comments and data may be submitted

by electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-rdocket@epa.gov. Electronic comments

must be submitted as an ASCII file to

avoid the use of special characters and

encryption problems and will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect

version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format.

All comments and data submitted in

electronic form must note the

appropriate docket number (see

ADDRESSES). No confidential business

information (CBI) should be submitted

by e-mail. Electronic comments may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

Commenters wishing to submit

proprietary information for

consideration must clearly distinguish

such information from other comments

and clearly label it as CBI. Send

submissions containing such

proprietary information directly to the

following address, and not to the public

docket, to ensure that proprietary

information is not inadvertently placed

in the docket: Attention: Mark Morris,

c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer

(Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel

Hill Street, Durham NC 27701. The EPA

will disclose information identified as

CBI only to the extent allowed by the

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies a submission when it is

received by the EPA, the information

may be made available to the public

without further notice to the

commenter.

Public Hearing

Persons interested in presenting oral

testimony or inquiring as to whether a

hearing is to be held should contact Ms.

Maria Noell (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 2 days in

advance of the public hearing. Persons

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76409

interested in attending the public

hearing must also call Ms. Noell to

verify the time, date, and location of the

hearing. The public hearing will provide

interested parties the opportunity to

present data, views, or arguments

concerning these proposed emission

standards.

Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of the record compiled by

the EPA in the development of this

rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic

file because material is added

throughout the rulemaking process. The

docketing system is intended to allow

members of the public and industries

involved to readily identify and locate

documents so that they can effectively

participate in the rulemaking process.

Along with the proposed and

promulgated standards and their

preambles, the contents of the docket

will serve as the record in the case of

judicial review. (See section

307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory

text and other materials related to this

rulemaking are available for review in

the docket or copies may be mailed on

request from the Air Docket by calling

(202) 260–7548. A reasonable fee may

be charged for copying docket materials.

World Wide Web (WWW)

In addition to being available in the

docket, an electronic copy of this

proposed rule is also available on the

WWW through the Technology Transfer

Network (TTN). Following signature, a

copy of the rule will be posted on the

TTN’s policy and guidance page for

newly proposed or promulgated rules

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN

provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air

pollution control. If more information

regarding the TTN is needed, call the

TTN HELP line at (919) 541–5384.

Regulated Entities

Categories and entities potentially

regulated by this action include:

Category NAICS code SIC code Examples of regulated entities

Industrial .......................................... 325188, 325199 ........................... 2819, 2869 ................................... Producers and coproducers of hydrogen cyanide and sodium cyanide.

325182 ......................................... 2895 ............................................. Producers of carbon black by

thermal-oxidative decomposition in a closed system, thermal

decomposition in a cyclic process, or thermal decomposition

in a continuous process.

325110 ......................................... 2869 ............................................. Producers of ethylene from refined petroleum or liquid hydrocarbons.

325222 ......................................... 2824 ............................................. Producers of spandex by reaction

spinning.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. To determine

whether your facility is regulated by this

action, you should examine the

applicability criteria in § 63.1104 of the

proposed subpart. If you have any

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Outline

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. What is the source of authority for

development of NESHAP?

B. What criteria are used in the

development of NESHAP?

C. Why is the EPA proposing to include

today’s standards in the generic MACT

standards?

D. What are the proposed amendments to

subpart YY and the subparts referenced

by it?

II. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing

A. Introduction

B. Summary of Proposed Standards for

Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing

C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards for Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing

D. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

Cost, and Economic Impacts

III. Carbon Black Production

A. Introduction

B. Summary of Proposed Standards for

Carbon Black Production

C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards for Carbon Black Production

D. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

Cost, and Economic Impacts

E. Solicitation of Comments

IV. Ethylene Production

A. Introduction

B. Summary of Proposed Standards for

Ethylene Production

C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards for Ethylene Production

D. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

Cost, and Economic Impacts

E. Solicitation of Comments

V. Spandex Production

A. Introduction

B. Summary of Proposed Standards for

Spandex Production

C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards for Spandex Production

D. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

Cost, and Economic Impacts

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulator

Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

I. Background

A. What is the Source of Authority for

Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to

list categories and subcategories of

major sources and area sources of HAP

and to establish NESHAP for the listed

source categories and subcategories. The

categories of major sources covered by

today’s proposed NESHAP were listed

on the following dates: Cyanide

Chemicals Manufacturing, July 16, 1992

(57 FR 31576); Carbon Black

Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197);

Ethylene Production, June 4, 1996 (61

FR 28197); and Spandex Production,

76410 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). A major

source of HAP is defined as any

stationary source or group of stationary

sources within a contiguous area and

under common control that emits or has

the potential to emit, considering

controls, in the aggregate, 9.1

megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per

year (TPY)) or more of any single HAP

or 22.7 Mg/yr or more (25 TPY) of

multiple HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the

Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to

establish NESHAP for the control of

HAP from both new and existing major

sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP

to reflect the maximum degree of

reduction in emissions of HAP that is

achievable. This level of control is

commonly referred to as MACT.

The MACT floor is the minimum

control level allowed for NESHAP and

is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the

CAA. In essence, the MACT floor

ensures that all major sources achieve

the level of control already achieved by

the better-controlled and lower-emitting

sources in each source category or

subcategory. For new sources, NESHAP

cannot be less stringent than the

emission control that is achieved in

practice by the best-controlled similar

source. The NESHAP for existing

sources can be less stringent than

standards for new sources, but they

cannot be less stringent than the average

emission limitation achieved by the

best-performing 12 percent of existing

sources (or the best-performing 5

sources for categories or subcategories

with fewer than 30 sources).

In developing MACT, we also

consider control options that are more

stringent than the floor. We may

establish standards more stringent than

the floor based on the consideration of

cost, nonair quality health and

environmental impacts, and energy

requirements.

C. Why is the EPA Proposing to Include

Today’s Standards in the Generic MACT

Standards?

We are proposing NESHAP for the

Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing,

Carbon Black Production, Ethylene

Production, and Spandex Production

source categories under the generic

MACT standards to reduce the

regulatory burden associated with the

development of separate rulemakings.

An owner or operator should consult

the generic MACT standards for

information on applicability of the

standards to their source, compliance

schedules, and standards. The generic

MACT standards generally refer the

owner or operator to other subparts for

requirements necessary to demonstrate

compliance.

We are proposing to include the

NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing, Carbon Black

Production, Ethylene Production, and

Spandex Production source categories

in the generic MACT standards to

simplify the rulemaking process, to

minimize the potential for duplicative

or conflicting requirements, to conserve

limited resources, and to ensure

consistency of the air emissions

requirements applied to similar

emission points. We believe that the

generic MACT regulatory framework is

appropriate for these source categories

because it allows us to incorporate

specific applicability and control

requirements that reflect our decisions

on these source categories while also

utilizing generic requirements

previously established for similar

emission sources that we have

determined are also applicable here.

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires

that emission standards for control of

HAP be prescribed unless, in our

judgement, it is not feasible to prescribe

or enforce emission standards. Section

112(h) identifies two conditions under

which it is not considered feasible to

prescribe or enforce emission standards.

These conditions are: (1) If the HAP

cannot be emitted through a conveyance

device, or (2) if the application of

measurement methodology to a

particular class of sources is not

practicable due to technological or

economic limitations. If emission

standards are not feasible to prescribe or

enforce, then we may instead

promulgate equipment, work practice,

design, or operational standards, or a

combination of them.

Common formats for emission

standards include a percent reduction,

concentration limit, or mass emission

limit. In some instances, adoption of an

emission standard may be feasible for

certain sources within a category or

subcategory and not for other sources

within the same category or

subcategory. In such cases, we may

adopt both an emission standard and an

alternative equipment, design, work

practice, or operational standard, but

only one type of standard will apply to

a given source depending on the nature

and configuration of that source.

Because today’s proposed standards

reference several other subparts to

control emissions, the format of the

standards (i.e., emission standard or

work practice) for each emission type is

that of the subparts which are

referenced. We developed the formats of

the standards proposed today based on

the development of the formats for the

existing generic standards.

D. What Are the Proposed Amendments

to Subpart YY and the Subparts

Referenced By It?

We are proposing to add sections to

subpart YY and the subparts referenced

by it that specify who has the authority

to implement and enforce the subparts.

These sections specify the authorities

that will be retained by the EPA

Administrator and the authorities that

may be delegated to a State, local, or

tribal agency. These proposed sections

do not affect the stringency of the

standards, nor would they increase the

burden on a State, local, or tribal

agency.

The proposed amendments clarify

appropriate methods for demonstrating

compliance with percent reduction

requirements and emission

concentration limits on combustion

devices. The proposed amendments

allow owners and operators to use either

Method 25, 25A (under certain specific

conditions), or 18 to demonstrate

compliance with the HAP percent

emission reduction requirement.

However, if Method 18 is used, we

clarify that only HAP that are present in

the inlet to the device can be used to

characterize the percent reduction

across the device. Additionally, you

must first determine which HAP are

present in the inlet gas stream (i.e.,

uncontrolled emissions) using process

knowledge or a screening procedure.

When using Method 25 or 25A, you

must measure the inlet and outlet mass

emissions as carbon.

We provided this clarification because

when organic compounds are controlled

by combustion processes, the organic

pollutants emitted at the outlet of the

device are not the same as those

entering the inlet to the device and are

typically unknown. Method 18, which

measures specific, known compounds,

will not yield accurate results unless it

can be used to determine the percent

reduction of known compounds across

the device. Conversely, Method 25

measures total non-methane organic

compounds and can be used to

determine percent reduction across the

combustion device regardless of how

the combustion process affects the inlet

and outlet streams. Under certain

conditions (i.e., controlled emissions

concentrations less than 50 parts per

million by volume (ppmv)), Method

25A may be used in lieu of Method 25

for determining the reduction across a

combustion device.

In demonstrating compliance with the

outlet concentration standard, you may

use Method 18 or Method 25A. If

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76411

Method 18 is used, the resulting

concentration must be reported as the

compound or compounds measured;

however, if Method 25A is used, the

concentration must be reported as

carbon.

II. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing

A. Introduction

1. What Are the Primary Sources of

Emissions and What Are the Emissions?

We have identified the following HAP

emission sources at cyanide chemicals

manufacturing facilities: (1) Process

vents, (2) storage vessels, (3) equipment

leaks, (4) transfer operations, and (5)

wastewater treatment operations. We

estimate that HAP emissions from

process vents and equipment leaks

account for more than 96 percent of the

total HAP emissions from the source

category.

We estimate nationwide HAP

emissions from the cyanide chemicals

manufacturing industry to be 239 Mg/yr

(263 TPY). The predominant HAP

emitted from this source category

include cyanide compounds (hydrogen

cyanide (HCN) and sodium cyanide),

acrylonitrile, and acetonitrile.

2. What Are the Health Effects

Associated With the HAP Emitted?

In the following paragraphs, we

present a discussion of the effects of

inhalation exposure to cyanide

compounds, acrylonitrile, and

acetonitrile.

Cyanide Compounds. Acute

inhalation exposure to high

concentrations of cyanide compounds

can be rapidly lethal. Acute inhalation

of HCN at lower concentrations can

cause a variety of adverse health effects

in humans, such as weakness, headache,

nausea, increased rate of respiration,

and eye and skin irritation. Chronic

inhalation exposure to cyanide

compounds can result in effects on the

central nervous system, such as

headaches, dizziness, numbness,

tremor, and loss of visual acuity. Other

chronic exposure effects in humans

include cardiovascular and respiratory

effects, an enlarged thyroid gland, and

irritation to the eyes and skin.

Acrylonitrile. Acute inhalation

exposure of workers to acrylonitrile has

been associated with the occurrence of

low-grade anemia, cyanosis,

leukocytosis, kidney irritation, mild

jaundice, and labored breathing.

Symptoms include mucous membrane

irritation, headaches, dizziness, nausea,

apprehension and nervous irritability,

muscle weakness, and convulsions.

Chronic inhalation exposure of

workers to acrylonitrile has been

associated with headaches, nausea, and

weakness. There are also several studies

that indicate a statistically significant

increase in the incidence of lung cancer

of workers with chronic inhalation

exposure to acrylonitrile.

Acetonitrile. Acute inhalation

exposure of humans to acetonitrile in

concentrations up to 500 ppmv can

cause irritation of mucous membranes,

and higher concentrations have been

associated with weakness, nausea,

convulsions and death. Chronic

inhalation exposure to acetonitrile

results in cyanide poisoning from

metabolic release of cyanide after

absorption. The major effects associated

with cyanide poisoning consist of

headaches, numbness, and tremors.

B. Summary of Proposed Standards for

Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing

1. What Is the Source Category To Be

Regulated?

The Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing source category includes

facilities that are engaged in the

manufacture of HCN or sodium cyanide:

(1) By reaction of methane and ammonia

over a catalyst (the Blausaure Methane

Anlage (BMA) process), (2) by reaction

of methane and ammonia in the

presence of oxygen over a catalyst (the

Andrussow process), or (3) as a byproduct of the acrylonitrile production

process (the Sohio production process).

The source category also includes

facilities that manufacture sodium

cyanide via the neutralization process,

sometimes referred to as the ‘‘wet

process,’’ in which HCN reacts with

sodium hydroxide solution, usually in a

system that includes the evaporation of

water and crystallization of the product.

2. What Is the Affected Source?

For the Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing source category, the

affected source includes each cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process unit,

along with associated wastewater

streams and equipment, that is located

at a major source. A cyanide chemicals

manufacturing process unit is the

equipment assembled and connected by

hard-piping or duct work that processes

raw materials to manufacture, store, and

transport a cyanide chemicals product.

The proposed definition of ‘‘cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process unit’’

also contains a list of equipment that is

part of the process unit. This list

includes reactors and associated unit

operations; associated recovery devices;

feed, intermediate, and product storage

vessels; product transfer racks and

connected ducts and piping; pumps,

compressors, agitators, pressure-relief

devices, sampling connection systems,

open-ended valves or lines, valves,

connectors, and instrumentation

systems; and control devices.

We have identified four distinct

processes used to produce cyanide

chemicals. Therefore, the definition of

affected source for cyanide chemicals

manufacturing specifies that a cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process unit

may be any one of the following: an

Andrussow process unit, a BMA process

unit, a sodium cyanide process unit, or

a Sohio HCN process unit. The

definitions of each of these types of

process units describes the process and

delineates where the process unit begins

and ends.

The Andrussow and BMA process

units begin with (and include) the raw

material storage tanks and end at the

point at which refined HCN enters a

reactor in a downstream process or is

shipped offsite.

A Sohio HCN process unit, in which

HCN is produced as a byproduct of

acrylonitrile, begins at the point where

the HCN leaves the unit operation

where the HCN is separated from

acrylonitrile. This unit operation is

often referred to as the ‘‘light ends

column.’’ As with all the other HCN

process units, the Sohio HCN process

unit ends at the point at which refined

HCN enters a reactor in a downstream

process or is shipped offsite.

The sodium cyanide process unit

begins just prior to the unit operation

where refined HCN is reacted with

sodium hydroxide and ends at the point

just prior to where the solid sodium

cyanide product is shipped offsite or

enters a reactor in a downstream

process.

3. What Are the Emission Limits,

Operating Limits, and Other Standards?

We are proposing NESHAP that

would regulate HAP emissions from

process vents from continuous unit

operations, storage vessels storing HCN

product, transfer operations,

wastewater, and equipment leaks (from

compressors, agitators, pressure relief

devices, pumps, sampling connection

systems, open-ended valves or lines,

valves, connectors, and instrumentation

systems). We are proposing the same

requirements for existing and new

sources, except for wastewater. The

following are summaries of the

proposed requirements for each type of

emission point.

a. Process Vents from Continuous

Unit Operations. For process vents from

continuous unit operations, we are

proposing different standards for each of

the four types of cyanide chemicals

manufacturing process units. For each

76412 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

process unit type, we are proposing that

overall HAP emissions from the process

vents within the process unit be

reduced by a specified amount. The

required emissions reductions would

depend on the type of process unit. The

owner or operator would have the

option of controlling some vents and not

others; or controlling all vents to

different levels, as long as the overall

process unit process vent HAP

emissions standard is achieved. We are

also proposing that owners or operators

may comply by reducing emissions of

HAP from each individual process vent

to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected

to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion

device is the control device and

supplemental combustion air is used to

combust the emissions). The proposed

emissions reductions requirements are

summarized below by type of cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process.

Andrussow and BMA HCN production

process unit. Except during periods of

startup, shutdown and malfunction, we

are proposing that HAP emissions from

process vents from Andrussow and

BMA HCN production process units be

reduced by 99 weight-percent or to a

concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to

3 percent oxygen if a combustion device

is the control device and supplemental

combustion air is used to combust the

emissions).

During periods of startup, shutdown

or malfunction, we are proposing that

process vent HAP emissions be vented

through a closed vent system to a flare,

or reduced from each process vent by 98

weight-percent or to a concentration of

20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen

if a combustion device is the control

device and supplemental combustion

air is used to combust the emissions).

Sohio HCN production process unit.

For process vents from Sohio HCN

production process units, we are

proposing that overall process vent HCN

emissions from the process unit be

reduced by 98 weight-percent or to a

concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to

3 percent oxygen if a combustion device

is the control device and supplemental

combustion air is used to combust the

emissions), or by venting emissions to a

flare.

Sodium cyanide production process

units (wet-end and dry-end process

vents). In the proposed rule, we define

wet-end process vents as process vents

that originate from the reactor,

crystallizer, or any other unit operation

in the wet end of the sodium cyanide

process unit; and we define dry-end

process vents as process vents

originating from the drum filter or any

other unit operation in the dry end of

a sodium cyanide manufacturing

process unit. We are proposing that

overall HAP emissions from wet-end

process vents be reduced by 98 weightpercent or to a concentration of 20

ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if

a combustion device is the control

device and supplemental combustion

air is used to combust the emissions), or

by venting emissions to a flare. We are

proposing requirements that overall

HAP emissions from dry-end process

vents be reduced by 98 weight-percent.

b. Storage Vessels. We are proposing

that HAP emissions from storage vessels

that contain HCN be vented through a

closed vent system to a flare or any

combination of control devices that

reduces HAP emissions by 98 weightpercent.

c. Transfer Operations. We are

proposing requirements to control

emissions for each transfer rack that is

used to load HCN into tank trucks or rail

cars by venting emissions through a

closed vent system to a flare or any

combination of control devices that

reduces emissions of HCN by 98 weightpercent.

d. Equipment Leaks. We are

proposing requirements to control HCN

emissions through the implementation

of a leak detection and repair (LDAR)

program for equipment that contains or

contacts HCN and operates 300 hours or

more per year.

We are proposing that an owner or

operator may comply with the rule by

complying with either 40 CFR part 63,

subpart TT, National Emission

Standards for Equipment Leaks—

Control Level 1; or 40 CFR part 63,

subpart UU, National Emission

Standards for Equipment Leaks—

Control Level 2. The provisions of these

subparts control emissions from

equipment leaks by work practices (e.g.,

inspection for leaks, instrument

monitoring) and equipment

specifications. Both of these subparts

require that you inspect equipment for

leaks and repair detected leaks.

e. Wastewater. We are proposing

control requirements for HAP emissions

from process wastewater streams at new

facilities where the process water

contains HAP that are discarded from a

cyanide chemicals manufacturing

process unit. We are proposing that the

HAP emissions from the process

wastewater must be suppressed while

the wastewater is being conveyed to a

treatment device, and we are specifying

requirements for the controls to reduce

the HCN and acetonitrile concentration

in the process wastewater. We are

proposing that the treatment device

achieve 95 percent removal of HAP, and

that vents on the treatment device be

controlled to reduce HAP emissions by

98 percent.

4. What Are the Testing and Initial and

Continuous Compliance Requirements?

We are proposing testing and initial

and continuous compliance

requirements that are, where

appropriate, based on procedures and

methods that we have previously

developed and used for emission point

sources similar to those for which

standards are being proposed today. For

example, we are proposing control

applicability determination procedures,

performance tests, and test methods to

determine whether a process vent

stream is required to apply control

devices and to demonstrate that the

allowed emission levels are achieved

when controls are applied. The

proposed requirements are dependent

on the control device selected.

We are proposing control

applicability determination procedures

to measure process vent flow rate and

process vent HAP concentration

measurement. The proposed test

methods parallel what we have used for

process vent organic HAP emission

point sources in previous standards

(e.g., the Hazardous Organic NESHAP

(HON)). For measuring vent stream flow

rate, we propose the use of Method 2,

2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A. For measuring total vent

stream HAP concentration to determine

whether it is below a specified level, we

propose the use of Method 18 of 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A.

Additionally, we are proposing to

require initial performance tests for all

control devices other than flares and

certain boilers and process heaters used

as control devices for HAP emissions

from process vents. As with the HON,

we are not proposing a requirement to

perform an initial performance test for

boilers and process heaters larger than

44 megawatts (MW) (150 million British

thermal units per hour (Btu/hr)) because

they operate at high temperatures and

residence times. Analysis shows that

when vent streams are introduced into

the flame zone of these boilers and

process heaters, greater than 98 weightpercent of organic HAP emissions are

reduced, or an outlet concentration of

20 ppmv organic HAP is achieved. For

flares, a percent reduction or outlet

concentration measurement is not

feasible. Therefore, we determined that

a performance test is not necessary if the

control device is a boiler, a process

heater larger than 44 MW (150 million

Btu/hr), or a flare. For all other types of

control devices, the proposed NESHAP

require the owner or operator to conduct

a performance test to demonstrate that

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76413

the control device can achieve the

required control level and to establish

operating parameters to be maintained

to demonstrate continuous compliance.

The proposed requirements for cyanide

chemicals manufacturing list the

parameters that can be monitored for

combustion devices. For other control

devices, we require that an owner or

operator establish site-specific

parameter ranges for monitoring

purposes through the Notification of

Compliance Status report and operating

permit. Parameters selected are required

to be good indicators of continuous

control device performance.

In addition to testing and monitoring

of emissions control equipment, we are

also proposing that the closed vent

system that routes emissions to control

equipment be initially and annually

tested for HAP emission leaks (i.e.,

measurement greater than 500 ppmv). If

a leak is detected, we would require that

you eliminate the leak and monitor

equipment (no later than 15 calendar

days after the leak is detected).

5. What Are the Notification,

Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements?

We are proposing notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements in accordance with the

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,

subpart A) and other previously

promulgated NESHAP for similar source

categories.

We are proposing that owners or

operators of cyanide chemicals

manufacturing affected sources submit

the following four types of reports: (1)

Initial Notification, (2) Notification of

Compliance Status, (3) periodic reports,

and (4) other reports. Records of

reported information and other

information necessary to document

compliance with the standards would

be required to be kept for 5 years.

Equipment design records would be

required to be kept for the life of the

equipment.

For the Initial Notification, we are

proposing that you list the cyanide

chemicals manufacturing processes at

your facility, and which provisions may

apply. The Initial Notification must also

state whether your facility can achieve

compliance by the specified compliance

date. You must submit this notification

within 1 year after the date of

promulgation for existing sources, and

within 180 days before commencement

of construction or reconstruction of an

affected source.

For the Notification of Compliance

Status report, we are proposing that you

submit the information necessary to

demonstrate that compliance has been

achieved, such as the results of

performance tests and design analyses.

For each test method that you use for a

particular kind of emission point (e.g.,

process vent), you must submit one

complete test report. This notification

must also include the specific range

established for each monitored

parameter for each emission point for

demonstrating continuous compliance,

and the rationale for why this range

indicates proper operation of the control

device.

For periodic reports, we are proposing

that you report periods when the values

of monitored parameters are outside the

ranges established in the Notification of

Compliance Status report. For process

vents, records of continuously

monitored parameters must be kept. For

some emission source types, such as

storage vessels, equipment (e.g., valves,

pumps), and certain control devices

(e.g., flares), periodic inspections or

measurements are required instead of

continuous monitoring. Records that

such inspections or measurements were

performed must be kept, but results are

included in your periodic report only if

there is problem. For example, for

equipment associated with a cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process unit,

inspections and/or leak detection

monitoring records must be kept.

However, the results of such monitoring

must be submitted in the periodic report

only if a leak is detected. We are

proposing that the owner or operator

submit these reports semiannually,

unless monitored parameter values for a

particular emission point are outside the

established range greater than a

specified percentage of the operating

time, or if a problem is found during

periodic inspections or measurements,

whereby quarterly reporting is required.

Other proposed reporting

requirements include reports to notify

the regulatory authority before or after a

specific event (e.g., if a process change

is made, requests for extension of repair

period).

C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards for Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing

1. How Did EPA Select the Source

Category?

On February 12, 1998 (63 FR 7155),

we combined the HCN production and

sodium cyanide production source

categories into a new major source

category called Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing. Some facilities produce

sodium cyanide and HCN in the same

process train (i.e., using the same or

linked equipment); therefore, we

decided to combine these two source

categories because it makes more sense

to have facilities subject to one rule

rather than two separate rules for

different parts of their process.

The Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing source category includes

facilities that manufacture HCN using

any of the following methods: The BMA

production process, the Andrussow

production process, and as a byproduct

of the Sohio HCN production process.

The source category also includes

facilities that manufacture sodium

cyanide via the neutralization process

(or the ‘‘wet process’’). We defined the

source category to include these specific

production processes because these are

the only processes we identified that

manufacture HCN and sodium cyanide

in the United States.

Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA gives us

the authority to ‘‘* * * distinguish

among classes, types, and sizes of

sources within a category * * *’’ when

developing standards. Subcategories, or

subsets of similar emission sources

within a source category, may be

defined if technical differences in

emissions characteristics, processes,

control device applicability, or

opportunities for pollution prevention

exist within the source category (57 FR

31576). Specific examples of these

differences include the types of

products, process equipment

differences, the type and level of

emission controls, emissions sources,

and any other factors that would impact

a MACT standard.

We did not identify differences in the

four cyanide chemicals manufacturing

processes (the Andrussow process, the

BMA process, the Sohio HCN

production process, and the sodium

cyanide process) included in the source

category that we believe meet the

criteria presented above for

subcategorization. All four processes

emit cyanide chemicals (HCN and

sodium cyanide), acetonitrile, and/or

acrylonitrile. In addition, facilities using

each process type commonly utilize

some form of combustion to reduce HAP

emissions from point sources.

Furthermore, the type of cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process does

not affect the ability of a facility to

reduce fugitive HAP emissions.

Therefore, because these processes have

similar emissions characteristics,

control device applicability, and

opportunities for pollution prevention,

we determined that it was not necessary

to divide this source category into

subcategories.

76414 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2. How Did EPA Select the Affected

Source?

The affected source is the group of

unit operations, equipment, and

emission points that are subject to the

proposed NESHAP. The affected source

can be defined as narrowly as a single

item of equipment or as broadly as all

equipment at the plant site that is used

to manufacture the product that defines

the source category. A major factor that

we considered in selecting the affected

source for the Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing source category was the

relationship between the affected source

definition and the format of the

standards.

The format of the standards for

process vents is a process-unit-wide

emission limit (i.e., specified percent

emissions reductions from all process

vents in the process unit). This provides

an owner or operator the option of

selecting the most cost-effective level of

control for each individual process vent,

as long as the overall emissions limit is

achieved. To accommodate this format,

it was necessary to define the affected

source to include all process vents in a

process unit.

The affected source also defines the

collection of equipment that you would

evaluate to determine whether

replacement of components at an

existing affected source would qualify

as reconstruction. If we define the

affected source narrowly, it could affect

whether some parts of a process unit

would be subject to new source or

existing source requirements. Since we

are proposing the same requirements for

existing and new sources for cyanide

chemicals manufacturing emission

points, the only implication for

narrowly defining the cyanide

chemicals manufacturing affected

source would be when the source would

have to comply with the standards.

We are proposing the process unit

that manufactures cyanide chemicals as

the foundation for the affected source.

We are proposing a definition of the

cyanide chemicals manufacturing

process unit as a collection of

equipment, assembled and connected by

hard-piping or duct work, that is used

to process raw materials to manufacture,

store, and transport a cyanide chemicals

product.

Of the five types of emission points at

facilities that manufacture cyanide

chemicals (process vents, storage

vessels, equipment leaks, transfer

operations, and wastewater), all except

wastewater are typically located within

a cyanide chemicals production process

unit. Wastewater that is generated

within a process unit is often routed

outside the unit for treatment and

discharge. In addition, some equipment

(i.e., pumps, valves, compressors, etc.)

that is used to transport chemicals may

be located outside of the cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process unit.

Therefore, we have proposed a

definition of the affected source to

include each cyanide chemicals

manufacturing process unit and all

associated waste management units,

maintenance wastewater, and

equipment in HAP service.

Cyanide chemicals production

process units are seldom ‘‘stand-alone’’

facilities. Rather, the production of

cyanide chemicals is usually part of an

integrated facility. Therefore, the point

at which a cyanide chemicals

manufacturing process unit begins and

ends is not always obvious. Because of

this, it is necessary to define the

boundaries of the affected source.

As discussed previously, four distinct

processes are included in the source

category. The proposed rule specifies

that a cyanide chemicals manufacturing

process unit can be either an

Andrussow process unit, a BMA process

unit, a sodium cyanide process unit, or

a Sohio HCN production process unit.

The boundaries of the affected source

are described in the definitions of the

individual types of process units. We

determined that a common demarcation

of the end point of the affected source

is appropriate for all four process types,

but the beginning point needs to be

defined separately for each type of

process unit.

Cyanide chemicals product is either

loaded into a tank truck or railcar, or is

used as a raw material in another

process at the plant site or an adjacent

plant site. Other production processes

for which HCN may be used as a raw

material include processes that produce

acetone cyanohydrin (an intermediate of

the methyl methacrylate production

process), adiponitrile, chelating agents,

or cyanuric chloride. We considered

including downstream production

process HCN emission points under the

cyanide chemicals affected source.

However, we determined that

production processes where HCN is

used as a raw material are covered, or

will be covered, by other 40 CFR part 63

subparts. For example, chelating agents

production will be covered by the

Miscellaneous Organic Chemical

Manufacturing NESHAP, scheduled for

proposal in the summer of 2000.

Cyanuric chloride is an intermediate

product and will be covered by either

the Pesticide Active Ingredients

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart

MMM) or the Miscellaneous Organic

Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP.

Acetone cyanohydrin and adiponitrile

production are subject to the HON (40

CFR part 63, subpart F).

Therefore, we determined that the

affected source should end at the point

that the cyanide chemicals product is

either shipped offsite or is used as a raw

material in a downstream process. This

means that piping and associated

equipment (pumps, valves, etc.) up to

the point where the cyanide chemicals

are used in the downstream process (i.e.,

at the reactor) would be included in the

cyanide chemicals affected source. We

believe that this is necessary to ensure

that potential HAP emissions from this

equipment are covered by a 40 CFR part

63 subpart.

As noted above, we believe that the

starting point of the affected source

needs to be defined for each type of

process. The Andrussow and BMA

processes are straightforward because

raw materials are reacted to produce

HCN. Therefore, for these two processes,

we defined the beginning of the affected

source as the point at which raw

materials are stored.

In the Sohio HCN production process,

the primary product produced is

acrylonitrile, and HCN is manufactured

as a byproduct. The acrylonitrile

production process is covered under the

HON, although HCN emissions are not

subject to control under the HON.

Therefore, we needed to determine the

point in the Sohio HCN production

process where the Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing source category begins.

We considered including all parts of

the Sohio production process that

contained HCN. However, because the

Sohio production process is covered

under the HON, many of the streams

containing HCN may already be

controlled to the HON level of control.

Although HCN is not covered by the

HON (i.e., HCN is not included in table

2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart F), the

types of control devices (i.e.,

combustion devices) utilized by Sohio

facilities to comply with the HON also

reduce HCN emissions. As a result, we

concluded that the burden of

overlapping standards would not justify

the very small potential for additional

HCN reductions.

We wanted to define a point so that

there would be no overlap between a

HON affected source and a cyanide

chemicals affected source. There is a

point in the Sohio production process

where the HCN is separated from the

acrylonitrile, typically in a unit

operation referred to as the ‘‘light ends

column.’’ Therefore, we defined the

beginning of the Sohio HCN production

process unit as the point the HCN leaves

the unit operation where the HCN is

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76415

separated from the acrylonitrile.

Because of our concern about the

potential for overlapping requirements

affecting a Sohio production process

unit, we are specifically requesting

comment on our proposed definition for

the cyanide chemicals manufacturing

affected source.

A primary raw material used in the

production of sodium cyanide is HCN.

Hydrogen cyanide that is produced in

an Andrussow, BMA, or Sohio

production process unit can be fed

directly into a process to make sodium

cyanide. Therefore, it was necessary to

delineate the boundaries between an

HCN process unit and a sodium cyanide

process unit. Most commonly, HCN is

refined in the HCN process and then fed

into a reactor, where it is reacted with

sodium hydroxide to form sodium

cyanide. Therefore, we defined the

beginning of the sodium cyanide

process unit as the unit operation where

refined HCN is reacted with sodium

hydroxide. However, some facilities do

not refine the HCN prior to reacting it

with sodium hydroxide. In these cases,

raw HCN is usually sent to an absorber,

where it is absorbed into a sodium

hydroxide solution to form sodium

cyanide. Since the emission stream from

this absorber is comparable to the

emission stream from an absorber in a

HCN process, we considered this

absorber to be part of the HCN process

unit, rather than part of the sodium

cyanide process unit. Therefore, in

situations where raw HCN is reacted

with sodium hydroxide prior to being

refined, we clarified that the sodium

hydroxide process begins at the point

that the aqueous sodium cyanide stream

leaves the unit operation where the

sodium cyanide is formed.

Additionally, in order to define the

point at which the sodium cyanide

production process begins, we are

proposing definitions for raw HCN and

refined HCN. In the proposed NESHAP,

we have defined raw HCN as HCN that

has not been through the refining

process and usually has an HCN

concentration less than 10 percent. We

have also proposed a definition of

refined HCN to mean the HCN that has

been through the refining process and

usually contains an HCN concentration

greater than 99 percent. We are

specifically requesting comments on the

proposed definitions for raw HCN and

refined HCN, as well as the point at

which the sodium cyanide production

process begins.

3. How Did EPA Select the Basis and

Level of the Proposed NESHAP for

Existing and New Sources?

We identified 16 facilities that

manufacture cyanide chemicals which

we believe represent the entire industry

in the United States. For existing

sources, the CAA requires us to

establish emission standards that are at

least as stringent as ‘‘* *ensp;* the

average emission limitation achieved by

the best performing five sources * * *’’

for categories or subcategories with

fewer than 30 sources. For new sources,

emission standards ‘‘* * * shall not be

less stringent than the emission control

that is achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source.’’

The term ‘‘average’’ is not defined in

section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. We have

the discretion within the statutory

framework to set MACT floors at

appropriate levels, and we have

interpreted the term ‘‘average’’ to mean

the mean, median, mode, or some other

measure of central tendency (59 FR

29196).

We chose the median (the value in a

set of measurements below and above

which there are an equal number of

values, when the measurements are

arranged in order of magnitude) as the

measure of central tendency in this

MACT floor analysis for existing

sources. We found that, for this source

category, the arithmetic mean resulted

in a level of control that was not

representative of any actual control

technology. Using a median allowed us

to select a MACT floor that corresponds

directly to the level of control

represented by a particular control

device. Also, because the data set we

used in our MACT floor analysis

consists of data from only 16 facilities,

we did not use a mode, which is more

appropriate for large data sets.

We also considered whether to

separate emission sources into groups

by emission source type (e.g., tanks,

process vents, fugitive emission sources)

based on equipment type, equipment

size, equipment contents, stream

characteristics, or control device

applicability. Because of differences in

emissions characteristics and vent

stream characteristics, we separated the

emission points in the Cyanide

Chemicals Manufacturing source

category by emission source type. We

grouped the emission points into one of

the following: Process vents, storage

vessels, wastewater streams, equipment

leaks, or transfer operations.

In addition, we may make grouping

decisions within each emission source

type based on equipment type,

equipment size, equipment contents,

stream characteristics, or other elements

that could affect the emission potential

of an emission point or the ability to

reduce emissions from that emission

point. We evaluated whether the

different types of cyanide chemicals

manufacturing processes should be

considered for each emission source

type. We concluded that for storage

vessels, equipment leaks, wastewater,

and transfer operations, the elements

that can affect the emission potential of

an emission point or the ability to

reduce emissions from the emission

point were not influenced by the type of

process. For example, the ability to

control HCN emissions from a storage

vessel is not dependent on the type of

process.

We did create groupings for process

vents. Because of similarities in the

types of unit operations and types of

control devices being used in the

Andrussow and BMA production

processes, we grouped and analyzed

these two processes together to

determine the MACT floor for process

vents. We did not include process vents

from the Sohio HCN production process

in this group, primarily because of the

differences in process operations and

controls. Specifically, the Sohio HCN

production process vents typically have

much lower emissions and are typically

controlled by using a flare, while

emissions from process vents in the

Andrussow and BMA processes are

somewhat higher and are typically

controlled by a boiler.

Process vents in the sodium cyanide

process were separated into wet-end

process vents and dry-end process vents

to determine the MACT floor. We did

this primarily because emissions from

dry-end process vents are particulate

cyanide chemicals (i.e., solid sodium

cyanide), rather than gaseous emissions.

Therefore, the types of controls used in

the dry end may be different from those

used in the wet end.

As previously discussed, the Cyanide

Chemicals Manufacturing source

category has fewer than 30 sources, so

the MACT floor must be based on the

best performing five sources. We

determined the best performing cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process units

for each emission source type: Process

vents (Andrussow/BMA process, Sohio

HCN production process, wet-end

sodium cyanide process vents, and dryend sodium cyanide process vents),

storage vessels, transfer operations,

equipment leaks, and wastewater. If

data were not available for each

emission source type at five or more

facilities, we determined the MACT

floor based on the number of facilities

for which data were available. The

76416 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

following paragraphs discuss the MACT

floor analysis for each emission source

type.

a. Process Vents. We considered two

basic measures of performance for

determining the best performing

sources. We considered a HAP emission

factor, expressed as HAP emissions per

unit of production. We also considered

an overall process unit HAP emission

reduction, expressed as a percent HAP

reduction. Emission factors were

calculated for each cyanide chemicals

manufacturing process unit, but we

rejected these factors for determining

the MACT floor because we could not

verify information on production rates,

and the accuracy and bases of the

emission rates were not always

apparent. We, therefore, used the

percent emission reduction across the

process as the basis for ranking facilities

within each process type because a

percent emission reduction is less

sensitive to the mass emission rate and

does not rely on production rate. This

approach was selected to determine the

MACT floor levels of control for process

vents, and the proposed standard is

expressed as a required percent HAP

emission reduction.

The following discussion presents the

results of our MACT floor analysis for

process vents for each type of cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process.

Andrussow/BMA process. In our

MACT floor analysis, we considered

nine facilities that use the Andrussow or

BMA process. All nine facilities

reported that they use combustion to

control HAP emissions from process

vents. Of these nine facilities, we had

control efficiency data for seven

facilities. The emission reduction for all

of the five best performing facilities is

99 weight-percent or greater. Therefore,

we concluded that the MACT floor for

existing sources is 99 weight-percent.

To determine the MACT floor for new

sources, we attempted to determine the

best performing source. We evaluated

the reported control efficiencies for the

five best performing sources in this

group. All of the sources apply some

form of combustion; however, we were

unable to identify any technical basis

for the reported differences in control

efficiencies for these combustion

devices. Therefore, we selected the

MACT floor for new sources as 99

weight-percent.

All of the five best performing sources

controlled emissions during startup,

shutdown, or malfunction events using

a flare. In general, we assume that a

properly operated flare will achieve an

emission reduction of 98 weightpercent. Therefore, we determined that

the MACT floor for startup, shutdown,

or malfunction events for new and

existing process vents is a flare or a 98

weight-percent emission reduction.

To select the proposed MACT for

process vents from the Andrussow/BMA

process, we considered above-the-floor

options for existing and new sources. As

previously discussed, we could not

identify the technical basis for the

differences in reported emissions

reductions for the combustion devices

represented by the MACT floor. Thus,

all of the combustion devices included

in the MACT floor analysis were

considered to be equivalent. Therefore,

we did not identify a control technology

more stringent than the MACT floor for

process vents in the Andrussow or BMA

processes. We are proposing that MACT

for process vents from the Andrussow/

BMA production process is the level of

control represented by the MACT floor

(i.e., a 99 weight-percent emission

reduction).

Sodium cyanide (wet-end) process.

We had information for three sodium

cyanide facilities that have wet-end

process vents. One facility had

uncontrolled process vents, and the

other two facilities each had an

emission reduction of 98 weight-percent

based on the use of combustion devices

and a median emission reduction of 98

weight-percent. Therefore, we

determined that the MACT floor for new

and existing sources is 98 weightpercent based on the use of a

combustion device.

To select MACT for wet-end process

vents, we considered the impacts of

above-the-floor options for existing and

new sources. As shown above, two of

the three sodium cyanide facilities

included in the MACT floor analysis are

controlled, and we believe that the

incremental costs (and the associated

cost effectiveness) of achieving a small

emission reduction greater than 98

weight-percent would be

disproportional to the additional HAP

emission reduction that would be

achieved (i.e., it would not be cost

effective to require a facility to remove

an existing combustion device and

replace it with one that gets an

additional 1 percent emission

reduction). As a result, we did not

perform an analysis of above-the-floor

control technologies for wet-end process

vents at sodium cyanide production

facilities. Therefore, we are proposing

that MACT for process vents in the wet

end of sodium cyanide production

facilities for existing and new sources is

a 98 weight-percent emission reduction

(i.e., the MACT floor).

Sodium cyanide (dry-end) process.

Information was available for two

sodium cyanide facilities with dry-end

process vents. We had control efficiency

data for both of these facilities. The

control efficiencies were 83 weightpercent based on a cyclonic dust

collector and 98 weight-percent based

on a caustic scrubber, with the average

emission reduction being 90 weightpercent. Therefore, we determined that

the MACT floor for existing sources is

90 weight-percent and the MACT floor

for new sources is 98 weight-percent.

To select MACT for dry-end process

vents at existing sources, we evaluated

the impacts of the MACT floor for new

sources. We estimate that the

incremental cost effectiveness

associated with raising the existing

source dry-end process vent emission

reduction requirement from 90 weightpercent to 98 weight-percent is

reasonable; therefore, we selected 98

weight-percent as MACT for existing

sources.

We did not identify an option more

stringent than the MACT floor for new

sources. Therefore, we are proposing

that MACT for dry-end process vents at

new sources is the MACT floor.

Sohio HCN production process. There

are five facilities using the Sohio HCN

production process that were

considered in the MACT floor analysis.

Of these five facilities, we have control

efficiency data for four facilities. The

emission reduction ranges from 97.8 to

98 weight-percent. The median

emission reduction for facilities for

which there is available data is 98

weight-percent. Therefore, we

determined that the MACT floor for new

and existing sources is 98 weightpercent.

To select MACT for process vents

from the Sohio HCN production

process, we considered the impacts of

above-the-floor options for existing and

new sources. Several of the facilities

included in the MACT floor analysis are

controlled, and we believe that the

incremental costs (and the associated

incremental cost effectiveness) of

achieving a small emission reduction

greater than 98 weight-percent would be

disproportional to the additional HAP

emission reduction that would be

achieved (i.e., it would not be cost

effective to require a facility to remove

an existing combustion device and

replace it with one that gets an

additional 1 percent emission

reduction). As a result, we did not

perform an analysis of above-the-floor

control technologies for process vents at

Sohio HCN production facilities.

Therefore, we are proposing that MACT

for process vents in Sohio HCN

production facilities for existing and

new sources is the MACT floor.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76417

Alternative standards and compliance

options (all process vents). Many of the

facilities for which we have data control

every process vent to a degree that

would meet the proposed level of

control. Clearly, the overall reduction

would comply with the required

reduction if each vent was achieving the

required emission reduction. In this

situation, we did not believe that

owners or operators needed to calculate

a process-unit-wide emission reduction.

Therefore, we added the option that

each process vent could be controlled to

the required level. We believe that this

would reduce the burden of

demonstrating compliance for owners

and operators in this situation.

In the preamble to the proposed New

Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

for Air Oxidation Unit Process (48 FR

48932, October 21, 1983), we stated that

20 ppmv is the lowest outlet

concentration achievable by combustion

of low concentration streams (i.e.,

streams with concentrations less than

around 2,000 ppmv). In addition, we

expanded the application of this lower

bound concentration performance

standard to control/recovery devices

other than incinerators (61 FR 43698,

August 26, 1996) controlling volatile

organic compounds. Therefore, for all

instances where the selected level of

control is a specified percent reduction,

we are proposing an alternative that

would allow compliance by achieving

an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv

(corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a

combustion device is the control device

and supplemental combustion air is

used to combust the emissions) for each

individual emission point (i.e., this

option is not allowed if you are

complying with a process-unit-wide

process vent requirement). We believe

that 20 ppmv is a reasonable level

achievable for low-concentration

streams. The exceptions to this are the

requirements for sodium cyanide dryend process vents. Since the emissions

from these dry-end vents are particulate,

the rationale for the 20 ppmv alternative

is not applicable.

Forms of the standards (all process

vents). The proposed standards for

process vents include a combination of

forms. For process vent streams

controlled by control devices other than

a flare, we selected the form of a

numerical emission limitation (a

weight-percent reduction or a

concentration), either on an individual

vent basis, or process-wide. This form

was chosen based on the controls used

at cyanide chemicals manufacturing

facilities and the data available for our

MACT analysis.

For vent streams controlled by a flare,

we selected a form consisting of

equipment and operating specifications,

consistent with the form for flare

requirements that we have specified for

other industries. This is because it is

very difficult to measure the emissions

from a flare to determine its efficiency.

b. Storage Tanks. Information was

available for HCN storage vessels at

eight facilities. The HCN storage vessels

are controlled at all eight facilities: Five

with a flare as the primary control

device, which we assume achieves 98

weight-percent emission reduction; one

with a scrubber, which was reported to

achieve an emission reduction of 98

weight-percent; one with a scrubber and

flare in series; and one with a gas

absorption column. We did not have

control efficiency data for the facility

with the scrubber and flare in series or

for the facility with the gas absorption

column; therefore, these facilities were

not considered in the MACT floor

analysis for storage vessels. The

remaining facilities were ranked by

emission reduction, and the five best

performing facilities were determined to

be those with the highest percentage

emission reduction. The emission

reduction associated with all of the top

five facilities was 98 weight-percent.

Thus, we determined the MACT floor

for new and existing storage vessels to

be an emission reduction of 98 weightpercent through the use of a flare or

other control device.

To select the proposed MACT for

storage vessels, we did not identify any

control technologies more stringent than

the MACT floor that would be

applicable. Although combustion

technologies exist that could achieve an

emission reduction higher than the

MACT floor level of 98 weight-percent,

we believe that due to the intermittent

nature of storage vessel emissions, flares

are the most appropriate combustion

control technology available for this

emission source type. Thus, we did not

perform an above-the-floor analysis for

storage vessels. Therefore, we are

proposing that MACT for storage vessels

for existing and new sources is the level

of control represented by the MACT

floor.

The proposed storage vessel

provisions include a combination of

forms. For storage vessels that contain

HCN that are controlled by a control

device other than a flare, we are

proposing an emission limitation in the

form of a specified weight-percent

requirement. We selected this form to

give owners and operators the flexibility

to install an applicable control

technology to meet the MACT floor.

For storage vessels controlled by

venting emissions to a flare, we have

selected a form consisting of equipment

and operating specifications, consistent

with the format for flare requirements

that we have specified for other

industries. This is because it is very

difficult to measure the emissions from

a flare to determine its efficiency.

c. Equipment Leaks. We have

information regarding equipment leak

emission control programs for ten

facilities. Four of these facilities are

subject to the equipment leaks NSPS in

40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. Six

facilities are subject to State equipment

leak requirements. To define the five

best performing facilities, we compared

the State rules to subpart VV and

concluded that subpart VV was either

equivalent to, or more stringent than,

the State rules. Therefore, the median

facility was determined to be a facility

subject to subpart VV. Thus, we

determined that the MACT floor for new

and existing equipment leaks is subpart

VV.

We identified one alternative that is

more stringent than the MACT floor for

equipment leaks. The equipment leak

provisions in the HON are more

stringent than the subpart VV level of

control. The level of control in subpart

VV is equivalent to the Generic MACT

control level 1, which is contained in 40

CFR part 63, subpart TT. The HON level

of control is equivalent to the Generic

MACT control level 2, which is

contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart

UU.

The basic elements of both the level

1 and level 2 equipment leak programs

are the same; however, level 2 requires

connector monitoring and has a

significantly lower leak definition. Due

to the wide range of compliance options

and performance-based incentives that

reduce the monitoring frequencies, it is

difficult to assess the incremental

difference in costs between these two

levels of control. In addition, due to the

highly lethal nature of HCN, cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process units

are much more rigorously maintained

than process units producing other, less

lethal chemicals. Because of these

factors, we do not believe that the

additional emission reduction would

justify the costs associated with

requiring a cyanide manufacturing

facility to comply with the HON

program. Therefore, we concluded that

it is not appropriate to require that

existing and new sources comply with

40 CFR part 63, subpart UU.

However, we recognize that many

cyanide chemicals manufacturing

process units are collocated with HON

facilities. In fact, HCN produced in a

76418 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Sohio HCN production process is

actually a byproduct of a HON process.

For the sake of consistency, some

owners or operators of cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process units

may prefer to comply with the HON

equipment leak program. Therefore, we

are proposing the option of complying

with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT

or UU.

The form of the provisions for

equipment leaks consists of work

practice and equipment specifications.

We have determined that it is not

feasible to prescribe or enforce emission

standards because emissions cannot be

emitted through a conveyance device,

and the application of a measurement

methodology is not practicable due to

technological or economic limitations

(57 FR 62608).

We considered whether it is

appropriate to require owners and

operators to monitor all equipment

components (i.e., connectors, flanges,

valves). We concluded that there could

be situations where the costs of

monitoring equipment with very low

HAP emission potential are not

reasonable. Therefore, we are proposing

an applicability cutoff for equipment

components based on the amount of

time the equipment contains or contacts

HAP. We are proposing an applicability

cutoff of 300 hours per year. We

selected this cutoff based on what has

been adopted under previously

promulgated NESHAP for equipment

containing or contacting organic HAP

(i.e., the HON) because we had

insufficient data on equipment leak

emissions and control at cyanide

manufacturing facilities.

We are proposing to exempt open

ended lines that contain HCN or

acrylonitrile from the requirements of

40 CFR part 63, subparts TT and UU.

According to industry representatives,

closing open ended lines that contain or

contact HCN or acrylonitrile could

potentially lead to trapped volumes of

these chemicals, which could

polymerize and raise significant safety

concerns.

d. Transfer Operations. We have

information for HCN transfer operations

at three cyanide chemicals facilities.

Two of these facilities control emissions

from transfer operations using a flare.

The third facility routes HCN emissions

from transfer operations to a vent

scrubber with a flare as a backup. The

emission reduction for all three of these

facilities with transfer operations is

reported to be 98 weight-percent. Thus,

we determined the MACT floor for new

and existing transfer operations to be an

emission reduction of 98 weight-percent

through the use of a flare or other

device.

To select the proposed MACT for

transfer operations, we did not identify

any control technologies more stringent

than the MACT floor that would be

applicable. Although combustion

technologies exist that could achieve an

emission reduction higher than the

MACT floor level of 98 weight-percent,

we believe that the intermittent nature

of transfer operation emissions make

flares the most appropriate combustion

control technology for this emission

source type. Thus, we did not perform

an above-the-floor analysis for transfer

operations. Therefore, we are proposing

that MACT for transfer operations for

existing and new sources is the level of

control represented by the MACT floor.

The proposed standards for transfer

operations include a combination of

forms. For transfer racks that are used to

load HCN into tank trucks and rail cars

that are controlled by control devices

other than a flare, we are proposing an

emission limitation in the form of a

specified weight-percent requirement.

This form was chosen based on controls

used at cyanide chemicals

manufacturing facilities and the data

available for our MACT analysis. We

selected this form to give owners and

operators the flexibility to implement an

applicable control technology to meet

the MACT floor.

For transfer racks controlled by a

flare, we selected a form consisting of

equipment and operating specifications,

consistent with the form for flare

requirements that we have specified for

other industries and emission points.

This is because it is very difficult to

measure the emissions from a flare to

determine its efficiency.

e. Wastewater Treatment Operations.

Wastewater is generated from the

Andrussow and BMA cyanide

manufacturing processes. We had

information available on the wastewater

handling practices for seven facilities in

the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing

source category. All seven of these

facilities have wastewater treatment

units in place at their facility necessary

to meet either their National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit requirements if they are allowed

to discharge directly to a body of

navigable water, or to meet the

requirements for discharging to a

publicly owned treatment works facility

if they have an indirect discharge

permit. Therefore, the median of the top

five facilities has a wastewater treatment

system in place to meet permitted

effluent discharge limits. These

wastewater treatment systems are

comprised of a series of tanks used for

settling, neutralization, clarification,

and in some cases, biodegradation (most

commonly found at facilities with

NPDES permits). All of these

wastewater treatment tanks are open to

the atmosphere.

The wastewater generated from these

cyanide chemicals manufacturing

facilities tends to enter a collection

system (typically a sewer) through

drains, sumps, trenches, and hotwells in

the process area. The collection system

carries the wastewater from the process

down to the wastewater treatment

system. Our information on these

cyanide manufacturing facilities does

not indicate that there are controls in

place to suppress HAP emission losses

from the wastewater en route to the

wastewater treatment plant. Therefore,

the collection and drain system design

is presumed to be typical of that found

in other SOCMI facilities, in which

these HAP emissions vent to the

atmosphere through conveyance points

such as junction boxes, man holes, and

lift stations. The tanks in the wastewater

treatment plant are open to the

atmosphere, where further HAP losses

occur through a combination of

evaporation and mechanical agitation.

Six of these seven facilities report that

they have a biological treatment tank or

open pond.

We are aware that biological treatment

units at SOCMI facilities are capable of

achieving HAP emissions reductions.

However, the biological treatment units

at these cyanide manufacturing facilities

were installed to meet requirements

associated with discharge of the

effluent. These units were not designed

for the purpose of reducing HAP

emissions to the ambient air, and we

believe that any associated reductions of

air emissions are insignificant. For this

component of the wastewater treatment

system to achieve significant reductions

in air emissions, the wastewater in the

drain and conveyance systems, both

within the process and going down to

the wastewater treatment system, must

be designed such that HAP emissions

are suppressed so that they can reach

the biological treatment system. In

addition, the tanks in the wastewater

system prior to the biotreatment tank

must also employ suppression controls.

Site specific variability in

performance of biotreatment tanks is

significant. Although all of these

facilities report a high level of removal

of known HAP across their wastewater

treatment systems, how much of the

HAP that are actually destroyed, as

opposed to stripped to the air, is

unknown. The degree that HAP removal

occurs through biological destruction is

a function of many factors, including

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76419

the aeration rate, the biomass, the

retention time in the tank, the biological

degradation rate, and surface area. As

noted in the promulgation preamble to

the HON, ‘‘* * * the variability in

performance makes it difficult to

quantify a required emission reduction

for the purpose of setting a standard.

Emission reductions for biological

treatment systems can only be

determined on a site-specific basis

* * *’’ (59 FR 19423). Moreover, given

the site-specific nature of these systems,

it would be difficult to develop even a

qualitative work practice standard based

on the median of the top five of these

facilities that would both be achievable

across the source category and

consistent with continued compliance

with effluent discharge permits. For

these reasons, we have determined that

the MACT floor for existing sources is

no further control requirements for

wastewater beyond current practices.

Two of the top five facilities report

that they treat their process wastewater

using stripping technology. One of these

facilities sends their wastewater to a

steam stripper, and the stripper effluent

then goes to their wastewater treatment

system. The other facility uses an air

stripper and sends the stripper effluent

to an ozonation step and then on to the

wastewater treatment system. Both

facilities control the vents on the

strippers by 98 percent through thermal

oxidation. The steam stripper is

achieving 95 percent removal across the

stripper. The air stripping system

reports similar performance, although

steam stripper performance is better

understood in terms of its ability to

remove HAP from wastewater and is

generally considered a more widely

applicable control technology for

removing HAP from wastewater.

Therefore, we have identified steam

stripping achieving 95 percent HAP

removal with 98 percent control of the

stripper vent to be the MACT floor for

new sources. We do not have any

information that would aid us in setting

an applicability cutoff for wastewater

streams based on flow rate and HAP

concentration. We do have information

on the specifically-named wastewater

streams being sent to the steam stripper.

Therefore, the new source MACT floor

also specifies the streams that must be

controlled.

We are unaware of any technologies

capable of performing at a higher

control level than the steam stripping

system representing the new source

MACT floor. For this reason, we are not

going beyond-the-floor to set MACT for

new sources. We then considered

whether this same stripping technology

with control of the stripper vent is an

appropriate control technology beyondthe-floor for existing sources. Since

these cyanide manufacturing processes

are similar to other SOCMI type

processes previously regulated under

other subparts, we evaluated what levels

of wastewater flow and HAP

concentration were considered

necessary to yield a reasonable cost

effectiveness beyond-the-floor. Our

available information on cyanide

manufacturing wastewater indicates that

the flow rates and HAP concentrations

fall well below applicability cutoffs

established under these previously

issued subparts. For that reason, we

believe that the cost effectiveness of

going beyond-the-floor for existing

cyanide manufacturing sources is not

reasonable.

We did not evaluate wastewater air

emissions from sodium cyanide

manufacturing wastewater. These

process units typically have some type

of water treatment that is part of the

actual process unit. Vents from these

treatment processes are considered to be

part of the wet end production unit

process vents and are regulated in the

process vent portion of this proposed

rule. We had no data indicating that the

streams exiting these process units

contain any HAP except for sodium

cyanide, which is not volatile.

4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance,

Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements?

We selected the monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements of 40 CFR part 63,

subparts YY, SS, TT, UU, and WW to

demonstrate and document compliance

with the cyanide chemicals

manufacturing standards. The

procedures and methods set out in these

subparts are, where appropriate, based

on procedures and methods that we

previously developed for use in

implementing standards for emission

point sources similar to those being

proposed for the Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing source category.

General compliance, monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements that would apply across

source categories and affected emission

points are contained within 40 CFR part

63, subpart YY (§§ 63.1108 through

63.1113). We specify the applicability

assessment procedures necessary to

determine whether an emission point is

required to apply control. These

requirements are dependent on the

emission point for which control

applicability needs to be assessed and

the form of the applicability cutoff

selected for an individual source

category (e.g., HAP concentration cutoff

level, above which, control is required).

We selected emission point and/or

control device-specific monitoring

(including continuous monitoring),

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements included under common

control requirement subparts

promulgated for storage vessels (40 CFR

part 63, subpart WW); equipment leaks

(40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or TT); and

closed vent systems, control devices,

recovery devices and routing to a fuel

gas system or a process (40 CFR part 63,

subpart SS). These subparts contain a

common set of monitoring,

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements. We established these

subparts to ensure consistency of the air

emission requirements applied to

similar emission points with pollutant

streams containing gaseous HAP. The

rationale for the establishment of these

subparts and requirements contained

within each subpart is presented in the

proposal preamble for the source

category requirements previously

promulgated under 40 CFR part 63,

subpart YY (63 FR 55186–55191).

We believe that the compliance,

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements of subparts YY,

SS, TT, and UU are appropriate for

demonstrating and documenting

compliance with the requirements

proposed for the Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing source category. This is

because these requirements were

established for standards with similar

form and similar emission points with

pollutant streams of gaseous HAP for

which we are requiring MACT

compliance demonstration and

documentation under this proposal.

D. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

Cost, and Economic Impacts?

1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

Nationwide baseline HAP emissions

from the Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing source category are

estimated to be 238 Mg/yr (263 TPY).

These proposed NESHAP will reduce

HAP emissions by approximately 106

Mg/yr (117 TPY). This is a 45 percent

reduction from the baseline level for

this source category and a 58 percent

reduction for those facilities required to

install controls to comply with the

proposed NESHAP.

We also estimate that the proposed

NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing source category will

reduce emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) by 102 Mg/yr (113

TPY). We estimate that the proposed

NESHAP will result in an increase in

sulfur oxide (SOX) emissions of 7.3 Mg/

76420 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

yr (8 TPY), an increase in nitrogen oxide

(NOX) emissions of 10.3 Mg/yr (11.4

TPY), an increase in carbon monoxide

(CO) emissions of 42.1 Mg/yr (46.4

TPY), and an increase in particulate

matter (PM) emissions of 0.3 Mg/yr (0.3

TPY). The increases in emissions result

from the on-site combustion of fossil

fuels and emission streams as part of

control device operations.

2. What Are the Cost and Economic

Impacts?

The total estimated capital cost of the

proposed NESHAP for the Cyanide

Chemicals Manufacturing source

category is $939,000. The total

estimated annual cost of the proposed

NESHAP is $2.4 million (fourth quarter

1998 dollars).

We prepared an economic impact

analysis to evaluate the impacts the

proposed NESHAP would have on the

cyanide manufacturing market,

consumers, and society. The total

annualized social cost (in 1998 dollars)

of the proposed NESHAP on the

industry is $2.4 million, which is much

less than 0.001 percent of total baseline

revenue for the affected sources. A

screening analysis indicates that no

individual firm affected by the proposed

NESHAP would experience costs in

excess of 0.001 percent of sales. For this

reason, we believe that the impact of the

proposed NESHAP will be minimal. No

facility closures are expected as a result

of the proposed NESHAP.

3. What Are the Nonair Health,

Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

We believe that there would not be

significant adverse nonair health,

environmental, or energy impacts

associated with the proposed NESHAP

for the Cyanide Chemicals

Manufacturing source category. This is

supported by impacts analyses

associated with the application of the

control and recovery devices required

under the proposed NESHAP. We

determine impacts relative to the

baseline that is set at the level of control

in absence of the standards.

Control of equipment leaks will

reduce the amount of HAP-containing

material that could be discharged to a

facility’s wastewater treatment stream

through equipment washdowns or from

stormwater runoff. The use of a scrubber

for HAP control from vents results in an

effluent wastewater stream from the

scrubber that would add a small amount

of wastewater to that already being

handled at the facility’s wastewater

treatment system.

There are minimal solid or hazardous

waste impacts associated with the

proposed NESHAP. A small amount of

solid waste may result from replacement

of equipment such as seals, packing,

rupture disks, and other equipment

components, such as pumps and valves.

A minimal amount of solid or hazardous

waste could be generated from the use

of steam strippers to control wastewater

emissions. The possible sources include

organic compounds recovered in the

steam stripper overheads condenser or

solids removed during feed

pretreatment.

The energy demands associated with

the control technologies for the

proposed NESHAP include the need for

additional electricity, natural gas, and

fuel oil. The storage tank, transfer

operations, equipment leak, and

wastewater controls are not expected to

require any additional energy. The total

nationwide energy demands that would

result from implementing the process

vent controls are approximately 3.1 x

1014 Joules per year.

III. Carbon Black Production

A. Introduction

1. What Are the Primary Sources of

Emissions and What Are the Emissions?

We evaluated the following potential

HAP emission sources at carbon black

facilities: (1) Process vents, (2)

equipment leaks, (3) storage vessels, and

(4) wastewater. Based on available

information, we have discerned that

process vents from the main unit filter

comprise most of the HAP emissions

from carbon black facilities. Process

vent emissions consist of tailgas from

the reactors. The reactor tailgas is sent

to a baghouse where the carbon black is

separated from the tailgas. The main

unit filter is where the carbon black is

separated from the tailgas. After

separation of the carbon black product,

most of the tailgas is emitted to the

atmosphere or sent to a combustion

control device. The process vents after

the main unit filter consist of vents from

unit operations involved in the

processing of the carbon black into final

product. Hazardous air pollutant

emissions may occur from process vents

after the main unit filter, but the amount

of HAP emitted from these vents is very

small compared to the amount emitted

from process vents from the main unit

filter.

In our evaluation of equipment leaks,

we found that leaks were not a

significant source of HAP emissions for

the Carbon Black Production source

category. One of the reasons for this is

the low vapor pressures of the raw

materials used in the production

process (i.e., the typical carbon black

feedstock is less than 0.05 kilopascals).

As with equipment leaks, our

evaluation of the potential for HAP

emissions from storage vessels indicated

that they were not a significant source

of emissions from carbon black

production facilities. This is because the

typical feedstock oil used in the carbon

black production process is heavy fuel

oil, which, because of its low vapor

pressure, is not likely to be emitted to

the atmosphere under normal operating

conditions. In addition, the feedstock oil

is nearly solid under standard pressure

and temperature and typically needs to

be heated to (and maintained at) 120

degrees Fahrenheit to allow it to flow as

a liquid.

In our evaluation of wastewater, we

did not identify any wastewater

emissions of consequence as a result of

the carbon black production process.

The process uses a quench tower to

capture the product, and the effluent

guidelines applicable to this source

category require that there be no

discharge of process wastewater to

navigable waters from carbon black

production facilities.

We estimate 1996 baseline HAP

emissions from the Carbon Black

Production source category to be 7,000

Mg/yr (7,700 TPY). This estimate

reflects emissions from process vents.

2. What Are the Health Effects

Associated With the HAP Emitted?

The principal HAP that we have

identified as being associated with

carbon black production facilities

include carbon disulfide, carbonyl

sulfide, and hydrogen cyanide. In the

following paragraphs, we present a

discussion on the effects of inhalation

exposure to these compounds.

Carbon disulfide. Acute (short-term)

inhalation exposure of humans to

carbon disulfide has caused changes in

breathing and chest pains. Acute human

inhalation exposure to carbon disulfide

has also been associated with nausea,

vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, headache,

mood changes, lethargy, blurred vision,

delirium, and convulsions.

Chronic (long-term) carbon disulfide

human exposure and inhalation studies

indicate the potential for adverse

neurologic effects. There is also a

potential for reproductive effects in

humans, such as decreased sperm count

and menstrual disturbances, that have

had chronic inhalation exposure to

carbon disulfide. Developmental effects,

including toxic effects to the embryo

and malformations and functional and

behavioral disturbances in offspring,

have been observed in studies on

laboratory animals with chronic

inhalation exposure to carbon disulfide.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76421

Carbonyl sulfide. Acute inhalation

exposure to carbonyl sulfide in high

concentrations may cause narcotic

effects in humans and may irritate eyes

and skin. No information is available on

the chronic effects of carbonyl sulfide in

humans.

Cyanide compounds. Acute

inhalation exposure to high

concentrations of cyanide compounds

can be rapidly lethal. Acute inhalation

of hydrogen cyanide at lower

concentrations can cause a variety of

adverse health effects in humans, such

as weakness, headache, nausea,

increased rate of respiration, and eye

and skin irritation. Chronic inhalation

exposure to cyanide compounds can

result in effects on the central nervous

system, such as headaches, dizziness,

numbness, tremor, and loss of visual

acuity. Other chronic inhalation

exposure effects in humans include

cardiovascular and respiratory effects,

an enlarged thyroid gland, and irritation

to the eyes and skin.

B. Summary of Proposed Standards for

Carbon Black Production

1. What Is the Source Category To Be

Regulated?

We have defined the Carbon Black

Production source category to include

any facility that produces carbon black

by the furnace black process, thermal

black process, or the acetylene

decomposition process. The furnace

black process is a closed system

thermal-oxidative decomposition

process, the thermal black process is a

cyclic thermal decomposition process,

and the acetylene black process is a

continuous thermal decomposition

process. Carbon black is primarily used

as a reinforcing agent for rubber. The

largest use of carbon black is in the

manufacture of automotive and truck

tires.

2. What Is the Affected Source?

We have defined the affected source

to include each carbon black production

process unit, along with associated

process vents and equipment that are

located at a major source, as defined in

section 112(a) of the CAA. We define a

carbon black production process unit as

the equipment assembled and

connected by hard-piping or duct work

to process raw materials used to

manufacture, store, and transport a

carbon black product.

3. What Are the Emission Limits,

Operating Limits, and Other Standards?

For existing and new sources, we are

proposing the same requirements for

process vents. For process vents that are

associated with the main unit filter, we

are proposing requirements to control

HAP emissions by venting emissions

through a closed vent system to a flare,

or by venting emissions through a

closed vent system to any combination

of control devices that reduces

emissions of HAP by 98 weight-percent.

As an alternative to meeting a 98

percent by weight HAP emission limit,

we are proposing that an owner or

operator may comply with the NESHAP

by reducing emissions of HAP from

their process vents from continuous unit

operations to a concentration of 20

ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if

a combustion device is the control

device and supplemental combustion

air is used to combust the emissions).

4. What Are the Testing and Initial and

Continuous Compliance Requirements?

We are proposing testing and initial

and continuous compliance

requirements that are, where

appropriate, based on procedures and

methods that we have previously

developed and used for emission points

similar to those for which we are

proposing standards with this action.

For example, we are proposing

applicability determination procedures

to determine whether a process vent

stream is required to apply control, and

performance tests and test methods to

demonstrate that the emission limits are

achieved when controls are applied.

The proposed requirements are

dependent on the control device

selected.

We are proposing control

applicability determination procedures

to measure process vent flow rate and

process vent HAP concentration. The

proposed test methods parallel what we

have used for process vent organic HAP

emission point sources in previous

standards. For measuring vent stream

flow rate, we propose the use of Method

2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part

60, appendix A. For measuring total

vent stream HAP concentration to

determine whether the vent stream HAP

concentration is below a specified level,

we propose the use of Method 18 of 40

CFR part 60, appendix A.

Additionally, we are proposing to

require initial performance tests for all

control devices other than flares and

certain boilers and process heaters used

as control devices for HAP emissions

from process vents. As with the HON,

we are not proposing a requirement to

perform an initial performance test for

boilers and process heaters larger than

44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) because

they operate at high temperatures and

residence times. Analysis shows that

when vent streams are introduced into

the flame zone of these boilers and

process heaters, greater than 98 weightpercent of organic HAP emissions are

reduced, or an outlet concentration of

20 ppmv organic HAP is achieved. For

flares, a percent reduction and outlet

concentration measurement is not

feasible. Therefore, we determined that

a performance test is not necessary if the

control device is a boiler, a process

heater larger than 44 MW (150 million

Btu/hr), or a flare. We proposed

performance tests that ensure that a

control device can achieve the required

control level and help establish

operating parameters that are indicative

of proper operation and maintenance.

We are proposing that continuous

compliance with emission standards for

process vents be demonstrated by

monitoring control device operating

parameters established during the

performance tests or specified in the

standards (as applicable). The proposed

requirements for carbon black

production list the parameters that can

be monitored for the common types of

combustion devices. For other control

devices, we would require that an

owner or operator establish site-specific

parameter ranges for monitoring

purposes through the Notification of

Compliance Status report and operating

permit. Parameters selected are required

to be good indicators of continuous

control device performance.

In addition to testing and monitoring

of emissions control equipment, we are

also proposing that the closed vent

system that routes emissions to control

equipment be initially and annually

tested for HAP emissions leaks (i.e., a

measurement greater than 500 ppmv. If

a leak is detected, we would require that

you eliminate the leak and monitor

equipment (no later than 15 calendar

days after the leak is detected).

5. What Are the Notification,

Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements?

We are proposing notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements that parallel the General

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),

and requirements to document

compliance that are similar to those

previously developed and used for

similar emission points.

We are proposing that owners or

operators of carbon black production

affected sources submit the following

four types of reports: (1) Initial

Notification, (2) Notification of

Compliance Status, (3) periodic reports,

and (4) other reports. Records of

reported information and other

information necessary to document

compliance with the proposed NESHAP

76422 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

would be required to be kept for 5 years.

Equipment design records would be

required to be kept for the life of the

equipment.

For the Initial Notification, we are

proposing that you list the carbon black

production processes at your facility

and the provisions that may apply. The

Initial Notification would also be

required to include a statement as to

whether your facility can achieve

compliance by the specified compliance

date. This notification would be

required to be submitted within 1 year

after the date of promulgation for

existing sources, and within 180 days

before commencement of construction

or reconstruction of an affected source.

For the Notification of Compliance

Status report, we are proposing that you

submit the information necessary to

demonstrate that compliance has been

achieved, such as the results of

performance tests and design analyses.

We provide information on the

requirements and information to be

provided to us for performance tests and

other methods of compliance

determination for process vents and

equipment. For each test method used

for a particular kind of emission point

(e.g., process vent), one complete test

report would be required to be

submitted. This notification would also

be required to include the specific range

for each monitored parameter for each

emission point for determining

continuous compliance, and the

rationale for why this range indicates

proper operation of the control device.

For periodic reports, we are proposing

that you report periods when the values

of monitored parameters are outside the

ranges established in the Notification of

Compliance Status report. For process

vents, records of continuously

monitored parameters must be kept. For

equipment leaks, inspections and/or

leak detection monitoring records must

be kept. These records would only be

required to be submitted in the periodic

report if a leak is detected. We are

proposing that these reports be

submitted semiannually, or quarterly if

monitored parameter values for a

particular emission point are outside the

established range by a given percentage

of the operating time.

Other reports that we are proposing to

require include reports to the regulatory

authority before or after a specific event

(e.g., if a process change is made,

requests for extension of repair period).

C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards for Carbon Black Production

1. How Did EPA Select the Source

Category?

We listed Carbon Black Production as

a category of major sources of HAP on

June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197). We listed

this category due to potential emissions

of carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide,

and hydrogen cyanide. When we

originally listed the Carbon Black

Production source category, we stated

that it included facilities that

manufacture carbon black using the

channel, thermal, or furnace process (61

FR 28197). In gathering and evaluating

more extensive information on the

production of carbon black, we

determined that the furnace black

process is the dominant production

process utilized in this source category.

The other types of production processes

we identified that are currently used in

the United States to produce carbon

black are the thermal, acetylene, and

lampblack processes. Therefore, in our

proposed definition of carbon black

production, we specify the furnace

black, thermal, acetylene, and

lampblack processes.

The CAA allows us to define

subcategories, or subsets of similar

emission sources within a source

category, if technical differences in

emissions characteristics, processes,

control device applicability, or

opportunities for pollution prevention

exist within the source category (57 FR

31576). Specific examples of these

differences include the types of

products, process equipment

differences, the type and level of

emission control, emissions sources,

and any other factors that would impact

a MACT standard. We did not identify

differences between the four carbon

black production processes included in

the source category that we believe meet

the criteria presented above for

subcategorization. They all have the

same basic unit operations, HAP

emission sources, and ability to control

the HAP emissions. Thus, we

determined that it was not necessary to

divide this source category into

subcategories.

2. How Did EPA Select the Affected

Source?

The affected source is the group of

unit operations, equipment, and

emission points that are subject to the

proposed NESHAP. We can define the

affected source as narrowly as a single

item of equipment or as broadly as all

equipment at the plant site that is used

to manufacture the carbon black

product. The affected source defines the

collection of equipment that you would

evaluate to determine whether

replacement of components at an

existing affected source would qualify

as a reconstruction. If we define the

affected source narrowly, it could affect

whether some parts of a process unit

would be subject to new source

requirements or existing source

requirements. We are proposing the

same requirements for existing and new

sources for carbon black production

emission points. Therefore, the only

implication for narrowly defining the

carbon black production affected source

would be when the source would have

to comply with the standards.

We selected the process unit that

manufactures carbon black as the

foundation for the affected source. We

defined the carbon black production

process unit as the collection of

equipment, assembled and connected by

hard-piping or duct work, that is used

to process raw material to manufacture

the carbon black product. We evaluated

the potential HAP emission sources at

carbon black production facilities and

determined that most HAP emissions

occur from a single point. This point is

the process vent from the main unit

filter, which includes the ‘‘tailgas’’ from

the reactor, along with miscellaneous

streams from other unit operations.

Based on the available information,

we concluded that HAP emissions from

storage vessels, equipment leaks, and

wastewater were not significant. In fact,

no HAP emissions or HAP emission

controls were reported by industry for

storage vessels and wastewater at any

carbon black facility. Therefore, we have

not included storage vessels and

wastewater streams as part of the

affected source.

In summary, we are proposing that

the affected source for carbon black

production include each carbon

production process unit located at a

major source, including all process

vents from the main unit filter, and

equipment (i.e., connectors, pumps,

valves) after the reactor that contains or

contacts HAP that are associated with

the carbon black production process

unit.

3. How Did EPA Determine the Basis

and Level of The Proposed NESHAP for

Existing and New Sources?

Eight companies operate 22 carbon

black production facilities in the United

States. For a source category with under

30 sources, section 112(d)(3) of the CAA

directs that the MACT floor for existing

sources be based on the average

emission limitation achieved by the best

performing five sources. The MACT

floor for new sources in a source

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76423

category is required to reflect the level

of control being achieved by the best

controlled similar source. The term

‘‘average’’ is not defined in the CAA. On

June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29196), we

announced our conclusion that

Congress intended ‘‘average,’’ as used in

section 112(d)(3), to be the mean,

median, mode, or some other measure of

central tendency. We also concluded

that we retain substantial discretion

within the statutory framework to set

MACT floors at appropriate levels, and

that we construe the word ‘‘average’’ (as

used in section 112(d)(3)) to authorize

us to use any reasonable method, in a

particular factual context, of

determining the central tendency of a

data set.

We chose the median as the measure

of central tendency in our MACT floor

analysis for process vents and

equipment after the reactor for existing

sources. We chose the median because

the arithmetic mean resulted in a level

of control that did not correspond to any

actual control technology. Using a

median allowed us to select a MACT

floor level of control that corresponds to

the level of control represented by an

existing control device. Additionally,

since our MACT floor analysis consisted

of data from only 22 facilities, choosing

the mode as the measure of central

tendency did not make sense, since the

mode is more appropriately used when

there is a large data set.

One decision that we must make is

how to ‘‘group’’ emission sources in the

MACT floor analysis. We often separate

emission sources into groups by

emission source type (e.g., tanks,

process vents, fugitive emission

sources). For the Carbon Black

Production source category, we

identified the process vent from the

main unit filter as a group for purposes

of determining MACT.

For process vents from the main unit

filter, we determined the MACT floor

for existing sources to be a 98-weightpercent HAP emission reduction. This

floor level of control represents the five

best performing facilities that achieved

the highest level of emissions

reductions and had the lowest reported

uncontrolled (inlet) total HAP

concentrations (considering vent flow

rate) for the main unit filter process

vent. Since all combustion devices in

our database achieve a 98-weightpercent HAP emission reduction, we

based the best controlled facilities on

those facilities that control the lowest

inlet concentration streams (considering

vent flow rate). We believe, based on

engineering judgement, that these low

uncontrolled (inlet) total HAP

concentrations represent the most

difficult main unit filter process vent

emission streams to control in the

Carbon Black Production source

category.

For process vents from the main unit

filter, we were unable to identify a

method of control in practice that would

achieve a greater level of HAP emissions

control than the MACT floor levels for

existing sources. Therefore, we

determined that the MACT floor for new

sources for process vents from the main

unit filter is the same as the MACT floor

for existing sources (i.e., a 98-weightpercent HAP emission reduction).

For process vents from the main unit

filter, we estimated and evaluated the

impacts of above-the-floor options for

existing and new sources. We did not

identify a viable above-the-floor option

for process vents from the main unit

filter for existing or new sources.

Therefore, we are proposing that MACT

for process vents from the main unit

filter for existing and new sources is the

level of control represented by the

MACT floor (i.e., a 98-percent HAP

emission reduction).

In our evaluation of control options

for carbon black facilities for process

vents after the main unit filter, we

determined that the MACT floor for

existing and new sources is no control.

This floor level of control represents the

five best performing facilities that

achieved the highest level of emissions

reductions and had the lowest reported

uncontrolled (inlet) total HAP

concentrations (considering vent flow

rate) for process vents after the main

unit filter. Four of the five facilities did

not indicate any air emissions control

after the main unit filter. One facility

reported process modifications that

reduce the residual HAP levels in the

process after the main unit filter by 98

weight-percent. Since this facility’s

level of control does not correspond to

a control type, we determined that the

MACT floor for both existing and new

sources was no control.

We estimated and evaluated the

impacts of above-the-floor options for

process vents after the main unit filter.

We evaluated controlling process vents

after the main unit filter to 98 weightpercent as an above-the-floor option. We

determined that the cost effectiveness of

this option is unreasonable. Therefore,

we selected the MACT floor level of

control for process vents located after

the main unit filter process to be MACT

(i.e., no control).

In determining MACT for process

vents, we considered whether it was

appropriate to apply a 98 weightpercent emission reduction requirement

to all process vents from main unit

filters. We determined that for lowconcentration streams (i.e., streams with

concentrations less than around 1,000

ppmv), a 98 weight-percent reduction

may not be achievable for all process

vents from the main unit filter.

Therefore, we are proposing an

alternative to the 98 weight-percent

reduction requirement for main unit

filter process vents at existing and new

affected sources. This alternative

standard is a HAP or total organic

compound (TOC) concentration limit of

20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen

if a combustion device is the control

device and supplemental combustion

air is used to combust the emissions),

which we have determined is a

reasonable level achievable for lowconcentration streams.

In determining MACT for process

vents from the main unit filter, we also

selected a control applicability cutoff for

existing and new sources, below which

the vent would not be subject to control

requirements. We selected an

applicability cutoff for existing and new

sources that represents the lowest inlet

concentration reported at one of the best

controlled facilities. The proposed

cutoff is 260 ppmv.

The standards that we are proposing

for process vents from the main unit

filter in the carbon black production

source category have various forms.

These forms consist of a combination of

emission standards and equipment,

design, work practice, and operational

requirements consistent with

requirements promulgated for similar

emission points and emission

characteristics. For process vent streams

controlled by control devices other than

a flare, we selected the form of a

numerical emission limitation (a

weight-percent reduction and a

concentration). This form was chosen

based on the controls used at carbon

black facilities and the data available for

our MACT analysis.

For vent streams controlled by a flare,

we selected a form consisting of

equipment and operating specifications,

consistent with the form for flare

requirements that we have specified for

other industries. This is because it is

very difficult to measure the emissions

from a flare to determine its efficiency.

4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance,

Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements?

We selected the monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements of 40 CFR part 63,

subparts SS, UU, and YY to demonstrate

and document compliance with the

carbon black production standards. The

procedures and methods set out in these

subparts are, where appropriate, based

76424 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

on procedures and methods that we

previously developed for use in

implementing standards for emission

point sources similar to those being

proposed for the Carbon Black

Production source category.

General compliance, monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements that would apply across

source categories and affected emission

points are contained within 40 CFR part

63, subpart YY (i.e., §§ 63.1108 through

63.1113). We specify the applicability

assessment procedures necessary to

determine whether an emission point is

required to apply controls. These

procedures are dependent on the

emission point for which control

applicability needs to be assessed and

the form of the applicability cutoff

selected for an individual source

category (e.g., a HAP concentration

cutoff level, above which control is

required).

We selected monitoring (including

continuous monitoring), recordkeeping,

and reporting requirements included

under common control requirement

subparts promulgated for equipment

leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU), and

closed vent systems, control devices,

recovery devices and routing to a fuel

gas system or a process (40 CFR part 63,

subpart SS). These subparts contain a

common set of monitoring,

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements. We established these

subparts to ensure consistency of the air

emission requirements applied to

similar emission points with pollutant

streams containing gaseous organic

HAP. The rationale for the

establishment of these subparts and

requirements contained within each

subpart is presented in the proposal

preamble for the source category

requirements previously promulgated

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY (63

FR 55186–55191).

The compliance, monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements of 40 CFR part 63,

subparts SS, UU, and YY, are

appropriate for demonstrating and

documenting compliance with the

requirements proposed for the Carbon

Black Production source category. This

is because these requirements were

established for standards with similar

forms and similar emission points, and

with pollutant streams of gaseous

organic HAP for which we are requiring

MACT compliance demonstration and

documentation under this proposal.

D. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

Cost, and Economic Impacts

1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

For the Carbon Black Production

source category, we estimate that the

proposed NESHAP would reduce HAP

emissions by 1830 Mg/yr (2,020 TPY).

This is a 26 percent reduction from the

total baseline HAP emissions for this

source category and a 95 percent

reduction for those facilities that would

be required to install controls to meet

the standards.

We estimate that the proposed

NESHAP for the Carbon Black

Production source category would

reduce CO emissions by 474,000 Mg/yr

(522,000 TPY), VOC by 16,900 Mg/yr

(18,600 TPY), hydrogen sulfide (H2S) by

10,300 Mg/yr (11,300 TPY), and PM by

740 Mg/yr (820 TPY). We estimate that

the proposed NESHAP would increase

SOX emissions by 32,900 Mg/yr (36,200

TPY) and NOX by 1,140 Mg/yr (1,260

TPY) as a result of on-site combustion

of fossil fuels. However, the air quality

benefits of the proposed NESHAP (i.e.,

reductions in HAP, CO, VOC, and H2S

emissions) outweigh the negative

impacts associated with the anticipated

increases in emissions of SOX and NOX.

2. What Are the Cost and Economic

Impacts?

The total estimated capital cost of the

proposed NESHAP for the Carbon Black

Production source category is $54.9

million. The total estimated annual cost

of the proposed NESHAP is $10.6

million. These costs represent fourth

quarter 1998 dollars.

We prepared an economic impact

analysis to evaluate the impacts these

proposed NESHAP would have on the

carbon black production market,

consumers, and society. The total

annualized social cost (in 1997 dollars)

of the proposed NESHAP to the industry

is $10.6 million, which is less than

0.001 percent of total baseline revenue

for the affected sources. A screening

analysis suggests only one of the firms

affected by the proposed NESHAP

would experience costs in excess of 1

percent of sales, and no firm would

experience costs in excess of 1.5 percent

of sales. For this reason, we believe the

impact of the proposed NESHAP will be

minimal. We expect no facility closures

as a result of the proposed NESHAP.

3. What Are the Nonair Health,

Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

We believe that there would not be

significant adverse nonair health,

environmental or energy impacts

associated with the proposed NESHAP

for the Carbon Black Production source

category. This is supported by impacts

analyses associated with the application

of the control and recovery devices

required under the proposed NESHAP.

We determine impacts relative to the

baseline that is set at the level of control

in absence of the proposed NESHAP.

There are no water pollution and

solid waste impacts from the use of air

emission control devices in the Carbon

Black Production source category. An

increase in energy consumption will

result from the use of combustion

control systems. We estimate that the

Carbon Black Production source

category will consume an additional 186

million cubic feet of natural gas per year

to meet the regulatory requirements of

the proposed NESHAP. This would

represent an increase in total domestic

natural gas consumption of less than 1/

100th of one percent.

E. Solicitation of Comments

Representatives of the carbon black

industry have expressed concern with

requirements in the proposed NESHAP

to monitor for leaks from air stream

conveyance systems. Under 40 CFR part

63, subpart SS, we are requiring facility

owners/operators to monitor for HAP

leaks from connectors and other

equipment involved in the conveyance

of HAP containing air emission streams

required to be controlled by the

proposed NESHAP.

Industry concern so far has centered

around two issues: (1) That the large

amount of nitrogen in carbon black

facility air streams may provide false

positive readings; and (2) that EPA

Method 21 (the required test method)

may not detect the nonorganic HAP

present in the gas stream for a carbon

black facility and, therefore, may not be

an effective monitoring procedure. We

are soliciting further industry comments

and data on these two issues in order to

more effectively address them in the

final NESHAP.

Many carbon black production

facilities use flares to control HAP

emissions. The flares used by the

industry are commonly called hydrogen

flares due to the presence of large

amounts of hydrogen in emission

streams being controlled. On May 4,

1998, we published a direct final rule

(63 FR 24436) to add operating

requirements designed to ensure that a

98 weight-percent destruction of organic

HAP and VOC is achieved by hydrogen

flares. We are aware that some members

of the carbon black industry use flare

designs that differ from the flare type

used to establish our current

requirements for hydrogen flares. While

some industry flares may not meet our

current operating procedures, they

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76425

might meet the required 98 weightpercent level required by the proposed

NESHAP.

We are soliciting test data collected by

industry that would show that flare

types used by the carbon black industry

achieve 98 weight-percent control. If we

determine the data submitted to be

adequate, a revision to the hydrogen

flare requirements could be

promulgated. This revision potentially

would allow the use of certain flares

meeting the required destruction

efficiency, yet operating outside of the

parameters we established in the May 4,

1998, Federal Register notice to be used

to meet the requirements of the

proposed NESHAP.

IV. Ethylene Production

A. Introduction

1. What Are the Primary Sources of

Emissions and What Are the Emissions?

The following emission types (i.e.,

emission points) are the primary sources

of emissions being covered by the

proposed NESHAP: Equipment

(including pumps, compressors,

pressure relief devices, valves, and

connectors); storage vessels; transfer

racks; process vents; heat exchange

systems; and waste operations. We

address pyrolysis furnaces and decoking

operations, but there are no specific

control requirements for these two

emission types.

A variety of HAP are emitted during

the ethylene manufacturing process.

The HAP emitted by the facilities

covered by the proposed NESHAP

include benzene, 1,3 butadiene, toluene,

naphthalene, hexane, and xylene. The

proposed standards regulate emissions

of these compounds, as well as other

incidental organic HAP that are emitted

during the manufacture of ethylene.

2. What Are the Health Effects

Associated With the HAP Emitted?

The data available to us indicate that

the primary HAP emitted by ethylene

manufacturing are benzene and 1,3

butadiene. Emissions of benzene and 1,3

butadiene are more than 80 percent of

the total HAP emissions from the

manufacture of ethylene/propylene. The

HAP that would be controlled with

today’s proposed NESHAP are

associated with a variety of adverse

health effects.

Benzene. Acute (short-term) exposure

to benzene in air can cause dizziness,

headaches, and unconsciousness.

Exposure to high levels of benzene can

result in death. Lower concentrations

may irritate the skin, eyes, and lungs.

Chronic (long-term) exposure to

benzene in occupational settings has

caused various disorders in the blood,

including reduced numbers of red blood

cells and aplastic anemia. Increased

incidence of leukemia (cancer of the

tissues that form white blood cells) has

been observed in workers exposed to

benzene. The EPA has classified

benzene as a Group A, known human

carcinogen.

1,3 butadiene. Acute inhalation of 1,3

butadiene results in irritation of the

eyes, nasal passages, throat, and lungs,

and causes neurological effects such as

blurred vision, fatigue, headache, and

vertigo. Epidemiological studies have

reported a possible association between

chronic 1,3 butadiene exposure and

cardiovascular diseases. Animal studies

have reported the development of

tumors following inhalation exposure to

1,3 butadiene. The EPA has classified

1,3 butadiene as a Group B2, probable

human carcinogen.

The effects of these HAP vary in

severity based on the level and length of

exposure and are influenced by sourcespecific characteristics such as emission

rates and local meteorological

conditions. Health impacts are also

dependent on multiple factors that

affect human variability such as

genetics, age, health status (e.g.,

presence of pre-existing disease), and

lifestyle. To the extent the adverse

effects do occur, the proposed NESHAP

will substantially reduce emissions and

exposures to the level achievable with

MACT. The seriousness of risks

remaining after impositions of the final

MACT standards will be examined at a

later date, as provided for under section

112(f) of the CAA.

B. Summary of Proposed Standards for

Ethylene Production

1. What Is the Source Category To Be

Regulated?

There are 37 ethylene production

plants operating in the United States.

We estimate that 30 or more facilities

are major sources. The proposed

NESHAP apply to all major sources that

produce ethylene. Final determination

of major source status occurs as part of

the compliance determination process

undertaken by each individual source.

Area sources are not subject to the

proposed NESHAP.

The Ethylene Production source

category includes any facility which

manufactures ethylene as a primary

product or an intermediate product.

Ethylene is produced by either a

pyrolysis process (hydrocarbons

subjected to high temperatures in the

presence of steam) or by separation from

a petroleum refining stream. The

ethylene production process includes

the separation of ethylene from

associated streams such as product

made from compounds composed of

four carbon atoms (C4), pyrolysis

gasoline, and pyrolysis fuel oil. The

ethylene production process does not

include the manufacture of synthetic

organic chemicals, such as the

production of butadiene from the C4

stream and aromatics from pyrolysis

gasoline. Propylene is often produced as

a product during the ethylene

production process, but the separation

of propylene from a refinery gas stream

does not in itself cause the process unit

or the equipment used for the separation

to be included in this source category.

In addition to ethylene and

propylene, other products from an

ethylene manufacturing process unit

(EMPU) may include, but are not

limited to: (1) Hydrogen and methane

containing streams, (2) ethane and

propane streams, (3) mixed C4+

pyrolysis products, (4) pyrolysis fuel oil,

and (5) specialty products such as

acetylene and methylacetylenepropadiene. For purposes of discussion

in this preamble, the term ethylene will

be used to describe the source category

and the associated process unit

equipment even though other products,

such as propylene, may be produced in

addition to and in greater or lesser

quantities than ethylene.

2. What Is the Affected Source?

We have defined the affected source

to include each EMPU, along with

associated process equipment

(including storage vessels, process

vents, transfer racks, waste streams,

piping, and heat exchange systems)

located at a plant site that is a major

source as defined in section 112(a) of

the CAA. The affected source does not

include associated equipment that does

not contain HAP, stormwater from

segregated sewers, water from

firefighting and deluge systems in

segregated sewers, water from testing

deluge systems, water from safety

showers, spills, storage vessels and

transfer racks that contain organic HAP

as impurities, or vapor balancing

transfer equipment. We define EMPU as

a process unit specifically utilized for

the production of ethylene/propylene

including all separation and purification

processes. The affected source does not

include pieces of equipment currently

included in other source categories.

3. What Are the Emission Limits,

Operating Limits, and Other Standards?

The following discussion briefly

summarizes the proposed control

requirements for the affected emission

types.

76426 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

a. Equipment leaks. The equipment

leak emission type represents emissions

from specific components within the

ethylene manufacturing process. These

components include pumps,

compressors, pressure relief devices, gas

valves, light liquid valves, heavy liquid

valves, and connectors. For equipment

containing or contacting HAP in

amounts of 5 percent or greater, HAP

emissions are required to be controlled

through the implementation of LDAR

program for affected equipment.

Monitoring frequency is based on the

percent of leaking equipment.

Requirements are the same for both

existing and new sources.

b. Process vents. For process vents

from continuous unit operations having

an average flow rate greater than or

equal to 0.008 standard cubic meters per

minute (scmm) and an average HAP

concentration of 30 ppmv or greater,

HAP emissions are required to be

controlled by routing emissions through

a closed vent system to one of the

following: (1) A flare, or (2) an enclosed

combustion device that reduces HAP

emissions by 98 weight-percent or to a

concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to

3 percent oxygen if a combustion device

is the control device and supplemental

combustion air is used to combust the

emissions). Recovery devices can be

used in certain situations to meet the 98

weight-percent reduction or 20 ppmv

requirement. Requirements are the same

for both existing and new sources.

c. Storage Vessels. For storage vessels

storing liquid containing HAP and

having a vapor pressure greater than or

equal to 3.4 kilopascals (0.5 pounds per

square inch absolute (psia)) but less

than 76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia),

requirements are based on capacity. For

storage vessels with capacity greater

than 4 cubic meters (1,000 gallons) but

less than 95 cubic meters (25,000

gallons), HAP emissions are required to

be controlled by filling the vessel

through a submerged pipe or by

complying with the requirements for

storage vessels with capacities greater

than or equal to 95 cubic meters (25,000

gallons). For storage vessels with

capacity of 95 cubic meters (25,000

gallons) or more, HAP emissions are

required to be controlled by equipping

the vessel with an internal floating roof

or external floating roof with seals and

controlled fittings or by routing

emissions through a closed vent system

to a flare, a fuel gas system or process,

or a control device that reduces HAP

emissions by 95 weight-percent. Vessels

storing materials with vapor pressures

of 11 psia or greater must be equipped

with a closed vent system routed to a

flare or control device that reduces HAP

emissions by 95 weight-percent.

Requirements are the same for both

existing and new sources.

d. Transfer Racks. For transfer racks

loading 76 cubic meters (20,000 gallons)

or more per day of HAP-containing

material (averaged over any consecutive

30-day period) and having a vapor

pressure greater than or equal to 3.4

kilopascals (0.5 psia), HAP emissions

are required to be controlled by

equipping the transfer rack with one of

the following: (1) A closed vent system

designed to collect the regulated

material displaced during loading and

route it to a flare or other control device

that reduces HAP emissions by 98

weight-percent or to a concentration of

20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen

if a combustion device is the control

device and supplemental combustion

air is used to combust the emissions), or

(2) process piping designed to collect

the regulated material displaced during

loading and route it to a process, a fuel

gas system, or a vapor balance system.

Requirements are the same for both

existing and new sources.

e. Heat Exchange Systems. The HAP

emissions from heat exchange systems

occur when a leak in a heat exchanger

allows HAP to be introduced to the

cooling water and released when the

cooling water is exposed to the

atmosphere. The HAP emissions are

required to be controlled by

implementing procedures to monitor

cooling water and repair equipment

upon detection of a leak. Cooling water

is monitored monthly for heat exchange

systems at existing sources and weekly

for heat exchange systems at new

sources.

f. Waste Operations. To control

emissions from waste streams, HAP in

the stream must be reduced by 99

weight-percent or to 10 ppmv. The HAP

reduction of 99 weight-percent must be

achieved using suppression followed by

steam stripping, biotreatment, or other

treatment processes. Vents from steam

strippers and other waste management

or treatment units are required to be

controlled by a control device achieving

98 weight-percent emission reduction or

20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen

if a combustion device is the control

device and supplemental combustion

air is used to combust the emissions) at

the outlet of the control device. The

term ‘‘waste’’ includes wastewater

streams. This term is used because the

proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart XX,

references the Benzene Waste

Operations NESHAP (BWON) for

controlling emissions from wastes

(including wastewater). Requirements

are the same for both existing and new

sources.

As discussed later in this preamble,

the requirements for waste operations

are based on the BWON. The BWON

includes three compliance options in

addition to the standard requirements.

These compliance options are not

included in the requirements for

ethylene production sources. The

BWON compliance options set limits

based on a total annual benzene (TAB)

quantity. Because the requirements for

ethylene production sources are for

controlling HAP emissions,

requirements including a TAB quantity

would not be appropriate. We do not

have adequate data to convert the TAB

limits into HAP emission limits.

Additionally, calculation of such a

quantity is a complicated and timeconsuming process. In complying with

the BWON, a TAB quantity is calculated

regardless of the compliance option

selected because a TAB quantity is used

to determine overall applicability of the

BWON. No such quantity is needed for

the ethylene production waste

requirements because they apply to all

ethylene production sources located at

major sources. Excluding the

compliance options simplifies the

requirements for ethylene production

sources by not requiring a TAB or a

HAP-based quantity to be calculated.

4. What Are the Testing, Monitoring,

Inspection, Recordkeeping and

Reporting Requirements?

The testing, monitoring, inspection,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements specified in the proposed

NESHAP are used to assure and

document compliance with the

standards. The testing, monitoring,

inspection, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements included in the

proposed NESHAP are based on such

requirements that we previously

developed for sources similar to those

for which standards are being proposed

today. The testing, monitoring,

inspection, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements for each

emission type are based on those in the

Petroleum Refineries NESHAP, the

BWON, the HON, and/or other rules as

appropriate. These testing, monitoring,

inspection, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements are the same as

the generic standards for storage vessels

(40 CFR part 63, subpart WW);

equipment leaks (40 CFR part 63,

subparts TT and UU); and process vents

(40 CFR part 63, subpart SS).

As discussed later in this preamble,

the proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart

XX, specifies that monitoring of HAP

concentration in waste streams after

treatment or process parameters that

indicate proper operation of treatment

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76427

systems must be conducted

continuously. Facilities that currently

perform concentration monitoring of

waste streams do so on a monthly basis

as required by the BWON. We do not

believe that monthly concentration

monitoring is sufficient to ensure

continuous compliance. Rules

developed under section 112 of the CAA

include monitoring strategies that

incorporate the concepts of enhanced

monitoring that were established in

section 114(a)(3) of the CAA. This

approach is designed to ensure that

monitoring procedures developed for

section 112 standards provide data that

can be used to determine compliance

with applicable standards, including

emission standards on a continual basis.

Since the waste requirements of the

proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart XX,

primarily refer to provisions in 40 CFR

part 61, subpart FF, that were developed

prior to the CAA Amendments, the

provisions do not ensure that

monitoring data are available to prove

compliance on a continual basis in all

cases. Therefore, today’s proposal

requires either continuous monitoring of

HAP concentration of the waste stream

exiting the treatment process or

continuous monitoring of process

parameters for the waste treatment

process/unit that would indicate proper

system operation. Facilities that comply

with the monitoring requirements of the

proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart XX,

are not required to comply with the

monitoring requirements of the BWON.

5. What Are the Startup, Shutdown, and

Malfunction Requirements?

The startup, shutdown, and

malfunction requirements included in

the proposed NESHAP are, where

appropriate, based on startup,

shutdown, and malfunction

requirements developed for the part 63

General Provisions and previously

incorporated in 40 CFR part 63, subpart

YY. Subpart YY requires that

minimization of emissions from startup,

shutdown, and malfunctions be

addressed in a startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan. The plan must also

establish reporting and recordkeeping of

such events. The existing startup,

shutdown, and malfunction

requirements have been reviewed and

were determined to be appropriate for

ethylene production sources.

Also, during development of the

proposed NESHAP, we determined that

decoking is a shutdown activity and

will be addressed through a facility’s

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan. The decoking process is similar to

other shutdown activities as defined in

subpart YY. Including decoking in a

facility’s startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan will require owners

and operators of an EMPU to include

procedures for decoking that will

minimize emissions. By including

decoking as a shutdown activity, owners

and operators will be afforded flexibility

in addressing decoking emissions while

ensuring that they will be minimized.

6. How Are the Proposed NESHAP

Related to Other Rules?

We recognize that the potential exists

for regulatory overlap between the

proposed NESHAP and other rules

previously developed under the CAA.

Therefore, we have clarified the

applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart

YY, as it relates to other 40 CFR parts

60, 61, and 63 rules that apply to

ethylene production sources in the

general applicability section of the

proposed NESHAP (§ 63.1100). Areas of

overlap may occur with other NESHAP

applicable to storage vessels, process

vents, transfer operations, and

equipment leaks, such as 40 CFR part

60, subparts Ka, Kb, VV, NNN, and RRR;

40 CFR part 61, subpart V; and 40 CFR

part 63, subpart G.

The requirements for equipment

leaks, storage vessels, process vents, and

transfer racks are similar to the

requirements for these emission types

under both the HON and the Petroleum

Refineries NESHAP. Thus, we expect

that most ethylene manufacturing

facilities are currently implementing

many of the proposed requirements for

a process unit at the plant site, which

will lessen the burden to owners and

operators. In addition, the proposed

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting,

and testing requirements are also similar

to those required by the HON and the

Petroleum Refineries NESHAP.

Further, the proposed NESHAP

reference several other subparts which

have established requirements for

equipment leaks, storage vessels,

process vents, and waste operations. We

made the decision to reference other

subparts in order to expedite the

rulemaking process and to encourage

standardization of requirements for

facilities subject to numerous NESHAP.

It is not our intent to broadly apply

standards that have been promulgated

previously by the Agency without

thorough consideration of the

appropriateness of such an approach.

We determined the appropriate

standards for each emission type at

ethylene manufacturing facilities prior

to making the decision to reference

other subparts for emission control

standards.

C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards for Ethylene Production

1. How Did EPA Select the Source

Category?

In the early listing of source

categories, we intended to regulate

ethylene processes with the SOCMI. We

did not do this because we had

insufficient data to support that

ethylene processes and SOCMI

processes were similar sources for

MACT determination. The ethylene

processes were, therefore, specifically

not covered by NESHAP for the SOCMI

source category (HON). Consequently,

we listed ethylene processes as a

separate category of major sources of

HAP on June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197).

2. How Did EPA Select the Affected

Source?

We determined the affected source by

first recognizing that ethylene

manufacturing processes generally exist

as a follow-on chemical process to

petroleum refining and as a precursor to

the production of other chemicals, most

of them SOCMI chemicals. Concerned

about overlap, we considered the

combination of equipment used in the

manufacture of ethylene, and the

associated by-products and co-products,

as the subject of this proposal, from the

point at which feed stocks from refinery

processes are received by an EMPU to

the point where chemical product

streams are either received by a unit

covered by another MACT standard, like

the HON, or leave the manufacturing

site as product or waste. Not all streams

in the affected source contain HAP, and

the primary products of the EMPU are

typically ethylene and propylene,

neither of which are HAP. Hence, not all

streams required control, only those

containing HAP. To simplify the process

of determining where to apply controls,

the following emission types (i.e.,

emission points) were identified as the

sources of emissions within the EMPU:

Equipment (including pumps,

compressors, pressure relief devices,

valves, and connectors); storage vessels;

transfer racks; process vents; heat

exchange systems; and waste

operations. We also identified pyrolysis

furnaces and decoking operations, but

there are no specific control

requirements for these two emission

types.

3. How Did EPA Determine the Basis

and Level of the Proposed NESHAP for

Existing and New Sources?

We are aware of 36 existing facilities

in this source category, 31 of which are

located in just two States, Texas and

Louisiana. Although we surveyed only

76428 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

11 of the facilities in Texas and

Louisiana, the MACT levels of control

were relatively predictable and largely

driven by existing State programs.

For this source category, the selection

of the best performing facilities upon

which to determine the MACT floor

used a point value approach, whereby

the floor decisions were driven by the

facilities that have the best LDAR

program for equipment leaks. The

information we collected indicates that

equipment leaks are the largest source of

HAP emissions at ethylene affected

sources.

To determine the existing MACT floor

using the point value approach, it was

necessary to determine the emission

limitations achieved by the best

performing 12 percent of sources (i.e.,

five facilities) in the ethylene

manufacturing industry. The five best

performing facilities were determined

on a facilitywide basis. For each

emission type (equipment leaks, storage

vessels, waste operations, heat exchange

systems, process vents, and transfer

racks), information on the control

devices and emission reduction

techniques in place at each facility was

used to identify the most controlled

sources. A ‘‘point system’’ was used to

rank the facilities in order of most to

least controlled. Facilities received

points for each emission type for which

they were among the best controlled.

The points received for an emission

type were weighted based on the

relative contribution to total emissions

to reflect the impact that control of the

emission type has on the total emissions

from a facility. All points for a facility

were totaled. The facilities with the five

highest point totals are considered to be

the best performing overall sources.

After we identified the top five

performing sources, we used the

information on the emission reduction

techniques and control devices in place

at those facilities to determine the

‘‘average’’ emission limitation achieved

for each emission type. For each

emission type, the five best performing

facilities were ranked, in order of

emission limitation achieved. The

MACT floor for existing sources is the

emission limitation achieved by the

median facility. For EMPU emission

types, determining the median

reduction achieved, rather than the

arithmetic mean, was found to be the

most appropriate approach, since the

median is associated with specific

control technologies. The MACT floor

for new sources is the emission

limitation achieved by the best

performing facility.

Although the five best performing

facilities were determined on a

facilitywide basis, it is important to note

that this analysis does not result in a

facilitywide level of emission reduction

that is being achieved by the best

performing sources. Adequate

information, specifically data on

emissions before control techniques are

applied, is not available to estimate

facilitywide emissions reductions. It is

unlikely that an accurate measure of the

emission limitations achieved could be

made. It is even less likely that such a

limit could be used as the basis for a

rule. Typically, MACT rules refer to a

control device or practice as the basis of

the standards because the MACT floor

and MACT must be technically

achievable. This would not be possible

if an estimated facilitywide emission

reduction was used as the basis for the

standards. Additional information on

selection of the five best performing

facilities and documentation on the

MACT floor methodology and

determination of MACT is included in

Docket No. A–98–22.

As a check against whether we had

properly identified the appropriate

MACT floor level of control for the other

HAP emission source types (i.e., storage

vessels, process vents, wastewaters,

cooling water, and furnaces), we then

independently evaluated the best level

of performance for each emission type.

In other words, we performed a cursory

analysis using the ‘‘plank-type’’

approach in determining the floor for

these other emission types, as described

in the preamble of the HON (59 FR

19402, April 22, 1994). We did not need

to reevaluate equipment leak best

performers since our point value

approach already emphasized best

performing LDAR programs.

To further verify that we had made

the right floor selections, we visited the

Texas Natural Resources Conservation

Commission to review the permits for

the facilities in Texas and were able to

confirm that the Texas facilities among

the 11 surveyed are the best performing

facilities in Texas. We also found that

the levels of controls for all of these

emission source types were a function

of compliance with either Texas or

Louisiana permit conditions, NSPS for

Air Oxidation and/or SOCMI

Distillation (40 CFR part 60, subparts III

and NNN), or the Benzene Waste

NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF).

Since the best performing sources

within each emission source type that

we identified through the point value

approach were the sources complying

with the most stringent applicable State

or Federal requirements, we concluded

that we would arrive at the same MACT

floor level of control for each emission

source type through either the point

value approach or through the ‘‘planktype’’ approach. A detailed discussion

of the determination of the MACT floor

and MACT for each emission type

follows.

a. Process Vents. To establish the

MACT floor for process vents, we

determined both the level of control

required and the vents to which control

must be applied. All vents at the best

performing facilities are being

controlled using a flare or other

combustion device. It is generally

accepted that combustion devices

achieve a 98 weight-percent reduction

in HAP emissions; therefore, this is the

MACT floor level of control for both

new and existing sources.

Only two of the best performing

facilities reported having any process

vents, and the volumetric flow rates and

HAP concentrations of the vents are not

known. The information available was

supplemented with information from

the regulations and the permit condition

with which the two facilities are

complying in order to determine the

applicability criteria for control. These

requirements include: Texas regulation

30 Texas Air Control (TAC) Chapter 115

Subchapter B; 40 CFR part 60, subparts

NNN and RRR. These regulations and

the applicable permit condition all

require the same level of control:

Reduction of organic compounds by 98

weight-percent or to a concentration of

20 ppmv. The only differences in the

applicable requirements are the cutoffs

for determining whether control is

required.

Both facilities that reported having

vents are subject to the Texas regulation,

whereas only one facility is subject to

the requirements of 40 CFR part 60,

subparts NNN and RRR. Therefore, the

requirements of the Texas regulation are

considered to represent the median

level of control. The Texas regulation

provides both a VOC concentration and

flow rate cutoff for vents that must be

controlled. The regulation requires that

vents with a flow rate greater than or

equal to 0.011 scmm and a VOC

concentration greater than or equal to

500 ppmv must be controlled. Based on

vent composition data provided by the

surveyed facilities, approximately 10

percent of the VOC in process vent

streams are HAP. Thus, we determined

that the MACT floor for existing sources

is to control process vents with a flow

rate greater than or equal to 0.011 scmm

and a HAP concentration greater than or

equal to 50 ppmv by reducing HAP

emissions by 98 weight-percent or to a

concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to

3 percent oxygen if a combustion device

is the control device and supplemental

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76429

combustion air is used to combust the

emissions).

For new sources, the most stringent

applicable regulation is the basis for the

control applicability cutoffs. Subpart

NNN requires vents with a flow rate

greater than or equal to 0.008 scmm to

be controlled. Subpart NNN of 40 CFR

part 63 does not specify a concentration

cutoff, but analysis of vents that are

required to be controlled based on the

total resource effectiveness index

indicated that vents with TOC

concentrations less than 300 ppmv are

not likely to be required to be controlled

(see the memorandum ‘‘Process Vent

Applicability Criteria’’ in the

Consolidated Federal Air Rule Docket

A–96–01 for a discussion of this

analysis). Because it is assumed that

TOC content is approximately equal to

VOC content for ethylene vents and that

10 percent of the VOC in these process

vent streams are HAP, the MACT floor

for new sources is to control process

vents with a HAP concentration greater

than or equal to 30 ppmv and a flow rate

greater than or equal to 0.008 scmm by

reducing HAP emissions by 98 weightpercent or to a concentration of 20

ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if

a combustion device is the control

device and supplemental combustion

air is used to combust the emissions).

More stringent applicability cutoffs

for control of process vents were

considered in identifying above-thefloor options for both new and existing

sources. One option more stringent than

the MACT floor for new sources is to

lower the flow rate control applicability

criteria to 0.005 scmm as used in the

HON. This cutoff is not significantly

different than the new source MACT

floor cutoff. Considering that there are

so few process vents at ethylene

manufacturing facilities, it is unlikely

that many additional vents would be

controlled or that additional emissions

reductions would be achieved by

lowering the cutoff. Therefore, the

applicability criteria for the new source

MACT level of control are the same as

the new source MACT floor level of

control.

For existing sources, the control

applicability criteria for the new source

MACT were considered as an above-thefloor option. Because there are relatively

few process vents at ethylene

manufacturing facilities and the

difference between the existing source

MACT floor and new source MACT is

so small, it is unlikely that many

additional vents, if any, would be

required to be controlled if the new

source applicability criteria are used.

Therefore, it is expected that there will

be minimal to no difference in the cost

of controls. We believe that the benefit

of simplifying the proposed NESHAP by

having the same control applicability

cutoffs for process vents at new and

existing sources greatly simplifies the

requirements for vents and outweighs

any additional cost. Thus, we

determined that the process vent

component of MACT is the same for

existing sources as it is for new sources.

We do not have adequate data to

prove this assumption and are soliciting

comments and data to: (1) Support or

refute the assumption that there are few

vents with flow rates between 0.008 and

0.011 scmm and HAP concentrations

between 30 and 50 ppmv, (2) aid in

estimating the cost of controlling these

vents if they do exist, and (3) support or

refute that there is a benefit associated

with simplifying the proposed NESHAP.

b. Storage Vessels. For storage vessel

emissions, the five best performing

facilities were ranked in order of the

emissions reductions achieved through

control equipment to determine the

median facility. In establishing the

storage vessel component of the MACT

floor, we also determined the vessels to

which controls would be applied.

It was not possible to construct the

entire storage vessel component of the

MACT floor based on the vessels at the

median facility because it does not

represent the full range of vapor

pressures of stored materials or sizes of

storage vessels. Additional information

was obtained from applicable

regulations and permit conditions. We

determined that control requirements

apply to storage vessels containing

liquids with vapor pressures greater

than or equal to 3.4 kilopascals (0.5

psia) and less than 76.6 kilopascals

(11.1 psia). The level of control is based

on storage vessel size. For storage

vessels with capacities greater than 4

cubic meters (1,000 gallons) and less

than 95 cubic meters (25,000 gallons), a

submerged pipe must be used for filling

the vessel unless more stringent controls

are in place. For storage vessels with

capacities greater than or equal to 95

cubic meters (25,000 gallons), the

following equipment comprises the

MACT floor at existing sources:

• An internal floating roof (IFR), an

external floating roof (EFR), or fixed roof

with a closed vent system routed to a

process, fuel gas system, or control

device.

• If the vessel has an IFR, a

mechanical shoe or liquid-mounted

primary seal, or a vapor-mounted

primary seal with a rim-mounted

secondary seal.

• If the vessel has an EFR, a

mechanical shoe or liquid-mounted

primary and rim-mounted secondary

seal.

• If the vessel has a vapor recovery

system routed to a control device, the

device must control HAP emissions by

95 weight-percent.

• Covers and gaskets on all access

hatches, which are to be bolted.

The overall storage control efficiency

for the two sources that perform better

than the median facility was considered

in determining the new source storage

vessel component of the MACT floor.

Storage vessels at the best performing

facilities have the same control as the

median facility except that all fittings on

most of the storage vessels are

controlled.

Requirements can be made more

stringent than the existing source

storage vessel component of the MACT

floor by requiring controls that achieve

a higher control efficiency. We

determined that for vessels with

capacities greater than or equal to 95

cubic meters (25,000 gallons), the

MACT level of control for existing

sources is the MACT floor level of

control with the addition of control for

all fittings. This determination is based

on a reasonable incremental cost

effectiveness for the addition of

controlled fittings. We determined that

it is more cost effective to implement

control of all fittings than it is to

implement the storage vessel

component of the MACT floor

requirements alone. No options more

stringent than the MACT floor for new

sources were identified. Therefore, the

MACT level of control for new sources

is the same as the MACT level of control

for existing sources.

c. Transfer Racks. Only one of the

best performing facilities has transfer

racks, and emissions are not controlled.

Due to the limited amount of

information available, it is not possible

to address how transfer of different

materials or at different rates would be

controlled by the best performing

facilities using only survey responses.

For this reason, we supplemented the

survey response data with information

from an applicable State regulation. The

control requirements of Texas regulation

30 TAC Chapter 115 Subchapter C,

Volatile Organic Compound Transfer

Operations, Loading and Unloading of

Volatile Organic Compounds, would

apply to four of the five best performing

facilities if they transfer materials

having vapor pressures and at rates that

meet or exceed the control applicability

cutoffs of the proposed NESHAP.

Subchapter C requires control of

loading greater than or equal to 20,000

gallons per day of VOC with a true

vapor pressure greater than or equal to

76430 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

0.5 psia. Loading racks meeting the

control requirement applicability

threshold are to be controlled with a

vapor recovery system that achieves a

90 percent recovery or a vapor balancing

system that maintains a pressure equal

to or greater than 1.5 psia. It is assumed

that the efficiency achieved for VOC

emission control is the same as the

efficiency achieved for HAP control in

the case of ethylene manufacturing

transfer racks. Subchapter C also

includes requirements for transport

vessels, lines, and connection systems.

Because four of the five facilities are

subject to the requirements of

subchapter C and none of them are

subject to or are controlling to levels

more stringent than subchapter C, we

determined that the transfer rack

component of the MACT floor for new

and existing sources is the set of

requirements included in subchapter C.

One above-the-floor option for

existing sources is requiring a greater

reduction in emissions. The HON and

40 CFR part 61, subpart BB (Benzene

Transfer Operations NESHAP), require

98 weight-percent control of HAP

emissions from transfer racks. We

determined it is appropriate to require

more stringent control, specifically 98

weight-percent control of HAP

emissions or to a concentration of 20

ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if

a combustion device is the control

device and supplemental combustion

air is used to combust the emissions).

Because an EMPU is either equipped

with a flare or has access to a common

flare, if a facility decides to equip

transfer racks with a closed vent system

and a control or recovery device, the

most cost-effective option would be to

route emissions to an existing flare. This

is supported by the fact that all transfer

racks at ethylene manufacturing

facilities that we estimate are controlled

use a flare as a control device. Routing

emissions to the flare would not cost

more than routing emissions to another

control device and would cost less than

constructing a new control or recovery

device. It is generally accepted that

flares achieve a 98 weight-percent

reduction in HAP emissions. Since

emissions can be reduced by 98 weightpercent at the same cost as reducing

them by 90 weight-percent, we have

determined that the appropriate MACT

level of control for existing sources is 98

weight-percent reduction in HAP

emissions (if a closed vent system and

control device are used) or to a

concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to

3 percent oxygen if a combustion device

is the control device and supplemental

combustion air is used to combust the

emissions). The same logic applies to

new sources. The least expensive

control option for a new source would

be to route transfer emissions to an

existing flare or new flare that must be

constructed anyway. Therefore, the

MACT level of control for new sources

is the same as the level of control for

existing sources.

d. Waste. According to the survey

responses, all of the best performing

facilities are controlling to comply with

the requirements of the BWON.

Therefore, the MACT floor for both new

and existing sources is based on the

control level achieved at the best

performing facilities. Although the

purpose of the BWON is to control

benzene emissions, the control

technologies in use to comply with the

BWON also result in the control of other

HAP. Based on data received in the

survey responses, waste streams from

each EMPU that contain benzene also

contain other HAP, primarily 1,3-

butadiene, cumene, ethyl benzene,

hexane, naphthalene, styrene, toluene,

and xylene. These HAP are similar to

benzene in solubility and volatility.

Therefore, we expect that these HAP are

controlled to a similar level as benzene

by management and treatment of the

waste streams.

The treatment requirements of the

BWON require removal of benzene from

the waste stream to 10 ppmw or by 99

weight-percent. For each closed vent

system and control device used to

comply with the requirements of the

BWON, a benzene reduction of 98

weight-percent must be achieved.

Because facilities controlling waste

under the BWON are also achieving

equal control of other HAP with

physical properties similar to benzene,

the control requirements of the MACT

floor are the control requirements of the

BWON for benzene as applied to total

HAP. Thus, the waste component of the

MACT floor requires removal of total

HAP from the waste stream to 10 ppmw

or by 99 weight-percent, and for each

closed vent system and control device

used to comply with the requirements of

the proposed NESHAP, a total HAP

reduction of 98 weight-percent must be

achieved.

Today’s proposed standards include

control applicability cutoffs which are

also based on the BWON. We

considered whether the best performing

facilities control all waste streams, and

whether we could determine a HAP

concentration cutoff and flow rate cutoff

as part of the MACT floor. Generally,

the BWON does not require

management or treatment of waste

streams containing less than 10 ppmw

benzene or having a flow rate less than

0.02 liters per minute. We considered

using the same cutoffs for the proposed

NESHAP. However, facilities controlling

waste for benzene are also achieving

concurrent control of other HAP with

physical properties similar to benzene.

In addition, expressing the cutoff

concentration in today’s proposal as a

benzene concentration could result in a

cutoff that might exclude from control

some waste streams that are similar in

terms of HAP concentration as those

being controlled at the floor. Since 10

ppmw benzene is approximately the

same as 10 ppmw HAP for most of the

waste streams, we are expressing the

cutoff for the MACT floor as not

requiring control of streams containing

less than 10 ppmw total HAP or with a

flow rate less than 0.02 liters per

minute.

Finally, the BWON applies to

facilities with a TAB quantity of 10 Mg/

yr or greater. If a facility’s waste streams

have less than 10 Mg/yr benzene, the

facility does not have to manage or treat

waste to comply with the BWON. This

cannot apply to MACT because MACT

is a technology-based standard, and the

MACT floor is based on the control

technology performance for control of

HAP at the best performing facilities.

All of the best performing facilities are

controlling HAP from waste streams.

Therefore, the MACT floor level of

control applies at each EMPU,

regardless of the TAB. We have

identified no rationale to support the

subcategorization of waste operations

based on the TAB.

One above-the-floor option is to have

no control applicability cutoffs. We

have determined that the emissions

reductions that would be achieved by

the management and treatment of all

waste streams would result in

considerably higher costs that cannot be

justified.

Additional above-the-floor control

options include more stringent

management and treatment

requirements. However, the

management requirements of the BWON

are already comprehensive and include

all equipment used to transport waste.

Similarly, the treatment requirements

are quite stringent: removal of total HAP

from the waste stream to 10 ppmw or by

99 weight-percent. We have not

identified more stringent requirements

for waste treatment. Therefore, we have

determined that MACT for both new

and existing sources is the MACT floor

level of control.

e. Heat Exchange Systems. No control

devices for cooling water were reported

by the best performing sources.

However, using the survey data, a

relationship was found between HAP

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76431

emissions and how often a facility

monitors cooling water for the presence

of compounds that would indicate a

leak. This relationship likely exists

because once a leak is detected, actions

are taken to repair the leak or take the

leaking equipment out of service,

thereby minimizing emissions from

cooling water. Three of the five best

performing facilities monitor monthly,

one monitors weekly, and one reported

using an on-line head space analyzer (a

head space analyzer does not provide

adequate indication of leaks to cooling

water and was not considered in

determining the heat exchange system

component of the MACT floor).

We have determined that the heat

exchange system component of the

MACT floor for existing sources is a

cooling water LDAR program that

includes monthly monitoring because

this is the frequency of monitoring at

the median facility. The heat exchange

system component of the MACT floor

for new sources includes weekly

monitoring because this is the most

frequent monitoring performed.

One above-the-floor option is to

require weekly monitoring at existing

sources. Other above-the-floor options,

which are not currently in place at any

of the surveyed ethylene manufacturing

facilities, are monitoring of the cooling

water on a daily basis or monitoring

continuously.

We have determined that the MACT

levels of control are the floor levels of

control for new and existing sources: a

LDAR program with monthly

monitoring for existing sources and

weekly monitoring for new sources.

Based on the information we have, the

average monitoring frequency in

practice by the best performing 12

percent of the affected sources is

monthly. We found only one facility

monitoring more frequently (weekly).

Based on these findings, cost

considerations and anticipated

emissions reductions, we believe that,

for existing sources, monthly

monitoring is an adequate frequency to

satisfy MACT.

If a leak is detected, repair is required

to be completed within 15 calender days

unless delay is required for reasons

specified in the proposed standards.

The time allowed for repair is consistent

with the time allowed for repair for

other leaking equipment at an EMPU,

and we have determined that it is an

appropriate amount of time to allow for

repair to heat exchange equipment as

well.

In addition to specifying the

frequency of cooling water monitoring

required, the proposed standards

specify procedures for collecting and

analyzing the samples. The test methods

specified are based on the requirements

of the HON which covers SOCMI

sources having heat exchange system

processes similar to ethylene production

facilities. The requirements for where to

obtain a cooling water sample are

unique to an EMPU. Ethylene

production requires a relatively high

cooling water usage, approximately

eight times that for a SOCMI unit. We

are concerned that, due to the high total

flow rate of cooling water, a leak in an

EMPU would result in a concentration

so low it would go undetected. To

address this concern, we are requiring

that cooling water be sampled at the

inlet and outlet of each heat exchanger.

This will ensure that the cooling water

will be tested at the lowest possible flow

rate, where leaks will be the least

diluted. To reduce the burden that this

requirement will cause, only heat

exchangers used to cool fluids

containing 5 percent HAP or greater are

required to be tested. This is the same

cutoff used to determine which

components must be monitored as part

of the LDAR program for equipment

leaks.

f. Equipment Leaks. The equipment

leak emission types include emissions

from specific components (pumps,

compressors, pressure relief devices, gas

valves, light liquid valves, heavy liquid

valves, and connectors) of the process.

A method for estimating controlled and

uncontrolled equipment leak emissions

from facilities in the SOCMI was used

to quantify the effectiveness of control

strategies in use at the five best

performing facilities. This method is

described in the 1995 Protocol for

Equipment Leak Emission Estimates

(EPA document 453/R–95–017).

The median control effectiveness is

achieved by control strategies at three of

the five best performing facilities. These

three control strategies are considered to

represent the equipment leak

component of the MACT floor for

existing sources. The median is

expressed as the control effectiveness

achieved by control strategies at three

facilities because the control

effectiveness achieved by these facilities

is equivalent. The control strategies

used by the three median facilities

include an LDAR program that requires

monitoring of valves, connectors, and in

some cases compressors, pumps, and

pressure relief devices. Emissions from

compressors, pumps, and pressure relief

devices that are not monitored are

routed to control devices. The level of

emissions used by the facilities to

indicate a leak is 500 ppmv.

Review of control strategies in use,

permit requirements, and regulations for

similar sources did not reveal any

equipment leak control strategies more

stringent than the MACT floor for

existing sources. This is not unexpected

considering the stringency of the MACT

floor at existing sources. The equipment

leak portion of the MACT floor requires

all components to be monitored or

controlled, so no additional components

could be added to the requirements. The

leak definition of the floor, 500 ppmv,

is the lowest used in the ethylene

manufacturing industry, with one

exception. One facility is using a 300

ppmv leak definition. We do not have

adequate data to determine how

emissions would be impacted by using

a leak definition of 300 ppmv rather

than 500 ppmv. The Protocol for

Equipment Leak Emission Estimates

document (EPA–453/R–95–017) does

not include emission factors for leak

definitions less than 500 ppmv. Due to

the level of accuracy of the sampling

and testing methods and the relatively

small difference in leak definitions, the

difference in emissions is likely to be

minimal. We have not identified any

options more stringent than the

equipment leak floor component for

existing sources. Therefore, the MACT

level of control for equipment leaks at

new and existing sources is based on the

floor level of control for existing

sources.

g. Furnaces. Typically, the ethylene

production process involves converting

large hydrocarbon molecules into

smaller molecules through a process

referred to as ‘‘thermal cracking.’’ This

takes place in the ethylene cracking

furnace. Based on information provided

in survey responses, the furnaces are

fired with natural gas, refinery gas, offgas from the production process, or a

combination of the three. Ethylene

cracking furnaces are expected to have

relatively low HAP emissions. The fuels

burned in cracking furnaces contain

relatively little HAP, and most organic

HAP are destroyed in the combustion

process. In fact, process heaters are used

as control devices for process vents

containing HAP. We decided to

consider standards for gas-fired process

heaters because HAP emissions can

result from incomplete combustion, and

natural and refinery gas combustion has

been shown to result in emissions of

formaldehyde. Ethylene cracking

furnaces could have been included in

separate MACT standards that are

currently being considered for process

heaters. However, we decided to

include cracking furnaces in the

proposed NESHAP for ethylene

manufacturing in order to establish

comprehensive MACT standards that

76432 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

cover all of the HAP emission types

within an ethylene manufacturing

process unit.

None of the surveyed facilities

reported controlling HAP emissions

from furnaces using an add-on control

device. In addition to add-on controls,

we considered control techniques that

may minimize HAP emissions. As

combustion destroys most organic HAP,

it is assumed that those furnaces

operated with optimal combustion

conditions would have the lowest HAP

emissions. One difficulty in pursuing a

level of good combustion as a regulatory

requirement is in determining a

parameter that accurately indicates good

combustion. Excess oxygen has been

suggested as a parameter that indicates

whether good combustion is being

achieved. Based on survey responses

and discussions with industry

representatives, the majority of ethylene

furnaces are equipped with monitors for

excess oxygen. At least one facility has

automatic controls for excess oxygen.

Generally, excess oxygen is monitored

to ensure that adequate oxygen is

available for combustion, and that

efficient combustion is being achieved.

Oxygen levels may also be monitored to

ensure that they do not exceed a level

that would result in excessive NOX

emissions. Because excess oxygen is

typically controlled by closing and

opening dampers by hand, it is not

precisely controlled, but rather allowed

to fluctuate within an acceptable range.

There is no evidence to suggest that any

of the facilities have determined the

relationship between excess oxygen and

HAP emissions. Theoretically, three

different furnaces, one with automatic

excess oxygen controls, one with an

excess oxygen monitor without

automatic controls, and one without

excess oxygen monitors could have the

same level of HAP emissions because

none of them are being operated to

specifically control HAP emissions.

Data are not available to determine

whether HAP emissions reductions are

actually being achieved by facilities

monitoring and/or controlling excess

oxygen. Therefore, we cannot require

the use of excess oxygen monitors for

controlling HAP emissions from

ethylene cracking furnaces.

Further, we have not identified any

add-on controls or control techniques

currently in use to control HAP

emissions from ethylene cracking

furnaces. The MACT floor for ethylene

cracking furnaces is no control, and

there are no known above-the-floor

options. Thus, although ethylene

cracking furnaces were considered in

developing the proposed NESHAP, no

regulatory requirements for them are

included.

h. Decoking. Coke is periodically

removed from the coils within an

ethylene cracking furnace through a

process referred to as ‘‘decoking.’’

During the decoking process, the

furnace is isolated from the rest of the

ethylene manufacturing process, and

steam is used to strip the coke from the

coils. The steam, products of

combustion, and coke that exit the

furnace coils are typically cooled, either

with quench water or in a heat

exchanger. Water and coke particles are

removed with a knock-out pot or other

mechanical control device. The

resulting water stream is routed back

into the process or is discarded. The

non-condensed stream is emitted to the

atmosphere or in some cases, routed

into the furnace firebox.

None of the facilities that received the

section 114 survey reported having any

test data for emissions from coke

combustion. We were not able to locate

any test data or published emission

factors for coke combustion. There are

reasons to believe HAP emissions from

decoking are relatively low. It is not

likely that the coke contains much

volatile material, and volatile material

should be destroyed during the

combustion phase of the decoking

process. However, the conditions within

the coils are not expected to be

conducive to good combustion, which

may result in volatile material not being

destroyed. Additionally, HAP emissions

may be created in the decoking process.

Another reason that it is important to

consider emissions from decoking is the

frequency with which it occurs. A

typical furnace may be decoked between

8 and 12 times per year. A typical

ethylene unit may comprise eight

furnaces. Assuming a decoke lasts 36

hours, a typical ethylene unit may have

a decoke of one of its furnaces occurring

40 percent of the time.

Due to the potential for HAP

emissions and the frequency of

decoking, we believe that it is necessary

to address decoking in the proposed

NESHAP. We have determined that

decoking is a shutdown activity and

will, therefore, be addressed through a

facility’s startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan. The definition for a

shutdown in the proposed NESHAP

includes ‘‘the cessation of operation of

a regulated source and equipment

required or used to comply with this

subpart * * * for purposes of * * *

periodic maintenance * * *.’’ During

decoking, the cracking process ceases in

order to allow the furnace to be

decoked, which is essentially a

maintenance activity. Defining decoking

as a shutdown activity requires

decoking operations to be included in a

facility’s startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan. This will require

owners and operators of ethylene units

to include in their plan procedures for

decoking that will minimize emissions.

This requirement is not expected to be

burdensome to owners and operators as

it is expected that most facilities already

have written decoking procedures.

Although it has been determined that

the most appropriate way to address

decoking is to consider it a shutdown

activity, we reviewed information

available to determine if it would be

possible to establish a MACT emission

limit for decoking. In the survey

responses, two facilities reported

routing decoking emissions from all

furnaces to the furnace firebox. This

technique may control HAP emissions

from decoking, if there are any.

However, its effectiveness is unknown.

We are not aware of any test data for

emissions before or after routing

through the furnace firebox. Based on

the information available, if a MACT

analysis were performed for decoking, it

is likely that the floor level of control

would be no control. Routing emissions

to the firebox could be considered as an

above-the-floor option. However, it

would be difficult to evaluate this

option because its effectiveness is

unknown. The results of the review of

information available for decoking

confirmed our decision to regard

decoking as a shutdown activity.

In addition to air emissions resulting

from decoking operations, it is also

possible that HAP may be present in the

condensate stream that results when the

steam, products of combustion, and

coke are cooled and condensed. If the

condensate stream is not recycled into

the process and is discarded, it will be

covered under the waste requirements

that are also proposed today. Therefore,

all possible sources of emissions from

decoking operations are covered by the

proposed NESHAP.

4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance,

Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements?

We selected the monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements of 40 CFR part 63,

subparts YY, SS, TT, UU, and WW, to

demonstrate and document compliance

with the proposed NESHAP for ethylene

production. The procedures and

methods set out in these subparts are,

where appropriate, based on procedures

and methods that we previously

developed for use in implementing

standards for emission point sources

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76433

similar to those being proposed for the

Ethylene Production source category.

General compliance, monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements that would apply across

source categories and affected emission

points are contained within 40 CFR part

63, subpart YY (§§ 63.1108 through

63.1113). We specify the applicability

assessment procedures necessary to

determine whether an emission point is

required to apply control. These

requirements are dependent on the

emission point for which control

applicability needs to be assessed and

the form of the applicability cutoff

selected for an individual source

category (e.g., HAP concentration cutoff

level, above which, control is required).

We selected emission point and/or

control device-specific monitoring

(including continuous monitoring),

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements included under common

control requirements in subparts

promulgated for storage vessels (40 CFR

part 63, subpart WW); equipment leaks

(40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or TT); and

closed vent systems, control devices,

recovery devices and routing to a fuel

gas system or a process (40 CFR part 63,

subpart SS). These subparts contain a

common set of monitoring,

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements. We established these

subparts to ensure consistency of the air

emission requirements applied to

similar emission points with pollutant

streams containing gaseous HAP.

We believe that the compliance,

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements of subparts YY,

SS, TT, and UU are appropriate for

demonstrating and documenting

compliance with the requirements

proposed for the Ethylene Production

source category. This is because these

requirements were established for

standards with similar form, and similar

emission points with pollutant streams

of gaseous HAP for which we are

requiring MACT compliance

demonstration and documentation

under this proposal.

D. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

Cost, and Economic Impacts

1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

We estimate that the proposed

NESHAP will decrease HAP emissions

by 992 Mg/yr (1,090 TPY) (a 60 percent

reduction) and decrease VOC emissions

by 9,271 Mg/yr (10,188 TPY) (a 64

percent reduction).

2. What Are the Cost Impacts?

The cost of implementing the control

techniques is expected to vary widely

between ethylene manufacturing

facilities. The cost of control techniques

for some facilities will be minimal

because they already have in place the

work practices, equipment, and control

devices required to comply with the

proposed NESHAP. The highest costs

will be incurred by facilities that are not

currently complying with the BWON

and will have to add waste management

and treatment equipment to comply

with the proposed NESHAP. We

estimate the average cost of controls for

these facilities to be $1.03 million. For

facilities that already have waste

management and treatment equipment,

we estimate the average cost to be

$7,600.

3. What Are the Economic Impacts?

The economic impact analysis for the

proposed NESHAP for ethylene

production shows that the annual

compliance costs are less than 0.01

percent of the sales for the 22 affected

firms. In fact, seven firms are expected

to experience small savings in costs as

a result of implementing the proposed

NESHAP. Therefore, no adverse impact

is expected to occur for these firms in

the ethylene manufacturing industry.

Estimation of the cost and economic

impacts of the proposed NESHAP is

detailed in memoranda included in the

docket for the proposed NESHAP

(Docket No. A–98–22).

4. What Are the Nonair Health,

Environmental and Energy Impacts?

We believe that there would not be

significant adverse nonair health,

environmental, or energy impacts

associated with the proposed NESHAP

for the Ethylene Production source

category. This is based on the types of

control techniques expected to be used

to comply with the proposed NESHAP.

The majority of control techniques are

either work practices, such as an LDAR

program for equipment leaks and

cooling water; or equipment standards,

such as floating roofs for storage vessels

which do not cause increases in water

pollution; or solid waste. Because most

of the control techniques expected to be

used to comply with the proposed

NESHAP are either work practices or

equipment standards, minimal increases

in energy use are expected.

E. Solicitation of Comments

Representatives of the ethylene

industry have reviewed our MACT floor

approach and suggested that the MACT

floor should not include connector

monitoring. Industry does not refute

that facilities are complying with State

requirements for connector monitoring,

or that the best performing facilities are

those with the most stringent LDAR

programs. However, industry believes

the emissions from connectors are

inflated due to the fact that we rely

upon the SOCMI emission factors,

which they believe are not appropriate

for connectors in the ethylene industry.

Industry representatives have submitted

data to support their position that

emissions from connectors are very low

and, therefore, routine connector

monitoring at ethylene facilities does

not result in reduced emissions.

Industry has concluded that the use of

different ethylene industry-derived

emission factors for connectors would

mean that the determination of the best

performing 12 percent of facilities

would not be as heavily influenced by

connector emissions as it is in our

analysis. They suggest that a different

set of five facilities (equivalent to the

best performing 12 percent of facilities)

would be among the best performers

than the five facilities upon which the

MACT floor for this proposal was

determined.

The data provided by industry, along

with correspondence from industry

representatives and summaries of

stakeholder meetings have been placed

in the docket (Docket No. A–98–22). We

are soliciting comment on these data

and industry’s conclusions. We did not

receive industry’s data in time for

evaluation prior to this proposal.

We are also soliciting comments and

data to support the determination of the

process vent component of the MACT

for existing sources. The MACT floor

level of control for existing sources

requires that vents with flow rates

greater than or equal to 0.011 scmm and

HAP concentrations greater than or

equal to 50 ppmv must be controlled to

reduce HAP emissions by 98 weightpercent or to 20 ppmv. An above-thefloor option considered is to require

vents with flow rates greater than or

equal to 0.008 scmm and HAP

concentration of 30 ppmv or greater to

be controlled. This option is based on

40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN—

Distillation Operations NSPS, which

applies to one of the best performing

facilities and is the same as the process

vent component of the MACT for new

sources. We do not have data to assess

the cost effectiveness of lowering the

control applicability cutoffs for existing

sources, but we believe the cost would

be minimal because there are relatively

few process vents, and the cutoffs being

considered are so similar to the MACT

floor. Additionally, having the same

cutoffs for new and existing sources

would simplify compliance with, and

enforcement of, the proposed NESHAP.

We are soliciting comments and data to:

76434 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(1) Support or refute the assumption

that there are few vents with flow rates

between 0.008 and 0.011 scmm and

HAP concentrations between 30 and 50

ppmv, (2) aid in estimating the cost of

controlling these vents if they do exist,

and (3) support or refute that there is a

benefit associated with simplifying the

proposed NESHAP by having the same

requirements for vents at new and

existing sources.

We are also soliciting comments on

the monitoring requirements for heat

exchangers. The proposed standards

require that cooling water samples must

be collected at the inlet and outlet of

each heat exchanger that cools process

fluids with 5 percent HAP or greater. An

alternative option that was considered

would allow samples to be collected at

the entrance and exit of each heat

exchange system, or at locations where

the cooling water enters and exits each

heat exchanger, or any combination of

heat exchangers as long as the cooling

water flow rate at the sampling point

does not exceed a specified value. We

do not have data to determine the

maximum flow rate to ensure that leaks

will be detected with the test methods

used. We are soliciting comments and

flow rate data to support or refute the

proposed requirements for sampling

cooling water at EMPU heat exchangers.

We are also soliciting comment to

support or refute the assumption that

the applicability criteria of 5 percent

HAP is appropriate for determining

which heat exchangers must be

monitored for leaks.

V. Spandex Production

A. Introduction

1. What Are the Primary Sources of

Emissions and What Are the Emissions?

The HAP emission points covered by

the proposed NESHAP include process

vents, storage vessels, and fiber

spinning lines. The HAP emitted from

spandex production facilities include

toluene and TDI. The proposed

NESHAP would regulate emissions of

these compounds, as well as other

incidental organic HAP that are emitted

during the manufacture of spandex

fiber. The 1997 baseline HAP emissions

estimate for the facilities using the

reaction spinning process is 303 Mg/yr

(334 TPY). The majority of these

emissions are from process vents and

fiber spinning lines.

2. What Are the Health Effects

Associated With the HAP Emitted?

The principle HAP associated with

spandex production facilities is toluene;

another HAP emitted in very small

quantities is TDI.

Toluene. Effects on the central

nervous system have been reported from

acute (short-term) and chronic (longterm) exposure to toluene and include

dysfunction, fatigue, sleepiness,

headaches, and nausea. Reported effects

from short-term high level exposures

also include cardiovascular symptoms

in humans. Additional long-term

exposure effects include irritation of the

eye, throat and respiratory tract. Studies

of workers occupationally exposed and

animals exposed in the laboratory have

reported adverse affects on the

developing fetus. Due to a lack of

information for humans and inadequate

animal evidence, EPA does not consider

toluene classifiable as to human

carcinogenicity.

TDI. Acute exposure to high levels of

TDI can result in severe irritation of the

skin and eyes and affects the

respiratory, gastrointestinal, and central

nervous systems. Chronic exposure of

workers on the job has resulted in

significant decreases in lung function

and an asthma-like reaction

characterized by wheezing, dyspnea,

and bronchial constriction. Animal

studies have reported significantly

increased incidences of tumors of the

pancreas, liver, and mammary glands

from exposure to TDI via gavage

(experimentally placing the chemical in

the stomach). The EPA has not

evaluated TDI for carcinogenicity,

however, the International Agency for

Research on Cancer has classified TDI as

a possible human carcinogen.

B. Summary of Proposed Standards for

Spandex Production

1. What Is the Source Category To Be

Regulated?

The Spandex Production source

category includes any facility that

manufactures spandex fiber by the

reaction spinning process. Spandex

fiber is a long-chain, synthetic polymer

comprised of at least 85 percent by mass

of a segmented polyurethane. The

spandex production process involves

the reaction of a diisocyanate with a

polyol (polyester or polyether glycol) to

generate diisocyanate-terminated

prepolymer. The prepolymer is

extruded (or spun) while

simultaneously reacting with a chainextender in a spin bath to generate

spandex fiber.

There are two spandex production

facilities in the United States that use

the reaction spinning process, and both

are presently major sources. The

proposed NESHAP would apply to any

major sources that produce spandex

fiber by reaction spinning. Final

determination of major source status

occurs as part of the compliance

determination process undertaken by

each individual source. Area sources

would not be subject to the proposed

NESHAP.

In reaction spinning: (1) The spandex

prepolymer is extruded into spinning

baths containing HAP solvent, (2) the

baths are covered with hoods and are

open to the room air, (3) the hoods and

room air are vented to an emission

control device, (4) the spandex polymer

is generated simultaneously with

extrusion, (5) drying is a separate

process step, and (6) there are large

quantities of HAP emissions.

2. What Is the Affected Source?

The affected source consists of all

process vents, storage vessels, and fiber

spinning lines that are associated with

reaction spinning spandex production

processes located at a major source of

HAP emissions, as defined in 40 CFR

part 63, subpart A.

3. What Are the Emission Limits,

Operating Limits, and Other Standards?

The following discussion briefly

summarizes the proposed control

requirements for the affected emission

points.

a. Process Vents. For process vents,

HAP emissions are required to be

controlled by routing emissions through

a closed vent system to one of the

following: (1) A flare, (2) an enclosed

combustion device that reduces HAP

emissions by 95 weight-percent or to a

concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to

3 percent oxygen if a combustion device

is the control device and supplemental

combustion air is used to combust the

emissions), or (3) a recovery device that

reduces HAP emissions by 95 weightpercent or to a concentration of 20

ppmv. Requirements are the same for

both new and existing sources.

b. Storage Vessels. Storage vessels

with capacity greater than 47.3 cubic

meters (12,500 gallons) that store

materials with a maximum true vapor

pressure of organic HAP greater than or

equal to 3.4 kilopascals (0.5 psia) are

required to control organic HAP

emissions by using an external floating

roof equipped with specified primary

and secondary seals, by using a fixed

roof with an internal floating roof

equipped with specified seals, or by

venting emissions through a closed vent

system to a control device achieving 95

weight-percent control. Requirements

are the same for both new and existing

sources.

c. Fiber Spinning Lines. For fiber

spinning lines, HAP emissions are

required to be captured and vented

through a closed vent system to a

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76435

control device achieving 95 weightpercent control or 20 ppmv (corrected to

3 percent oxygen if a combustion device

is the control device and supplemental

combustion air is used to combust the

emissions). Requirements are the same

for both new and existing sources.

4. What Are the Testing and Initial and

Continuous Compliance Requirements?

We are proposing testing and initial

and continuous compliance

requirements that are, where

appropriate, based on procedures and

methods that we have previously

developed and used for emission points

similar to those for which we are

proposing NESHAP with this action.

For continuous compliance, you must

install continuous parameter monitoring

systems (CPMS) and conduct a

performance evaluation of the CPMS.

You must identify a relevant parameter

that will indicate the control device is

operating properly and then

continuously monitor the selected

parameter.

5. What Are the Notification,

Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements?

If you are subject to requirements

under the Generic MACT standards

subpart, you would be required to

comply with general notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements.

You must submit one-time reports of

the (1) start of construction for new

facilities, (2) anticipated and actual

start-up dates for new facilities, and (3)

physical or operational changes to

existing facilities. You are also required

to maintain all records for a period of

at least 5 years.

If you own or operate an affected

source that has an initial startup date

before the promulgation date of

standards for that affected source under

the Generic MACT standards subpart,

you must submit a one-time initial

notification. You must submit this

notification within 1 year after the

promulgation date of standards for an

affected source under the Generic

MACT standards subpart (or within 1

year after the affected source becomes

subject to the Generic MACT standards

subpart).

For sources constructed or

reconstructed after the effective date of

the relevant standards, the General

Provisions require that the source

submit an application for approval of

construction or reconstruction. The

application is required to contain

information on the air pollution control

that will be used for each potential HAP

emission point.

The information in the Initial

Notification and the application for

construction or reconstruction will

enable enforcement personnel to

identify the number of sources subject

to, or are already in compliance with,

the standards.

You must also submit a Notification

of Compliance Status report. You must

have this notification signed by a

responsible company official who

certifies its accuracy and that the

affected source has complied with the

relevant standards. You must submit the

results of any required performance

tests (as applicable) as part of the

Notification of Compliance Status

report. You must submit the

Notification of Compliance Status report

within 60 days after the compliance

date specified for an affected source

subject to the Generic MACT standards

subpart.

For CPMS, you must submit a report

of the performance evaluation results to

the delegated authority. You must also

submit reports of parameter monitoring

deviations and CPMS performance

deviations to the delegated authority

semiannually.

C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards for Spandex Production

1. How Did EPA Select the Source

Category?

We listed Spandex Production as a

category of major sources of HAP on

July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Today’s

proposed standards apply to reaction

spinning processes only.

2. How Did EPA Determine the Affected

Source?

The affected source is the

combination of all regulated operations

at a spandex production facility. The

following regulated operations are

typically performed at spandex

production facilities and are part of the

affected source: process vents, storage

vessels, and fiber spinning lines. These

are the typical operations found at

spandex production facilities, and we

determined MACT for these operations.

3. How Did EPA Determine the Basis

and Level of the Proposed Standards for

Existing and New Sources?

There are two spandex production

facilities in the United States that

produce spandex fiber by reaction

spinning; these facilities are owned by

one company. Both are major sources as

defined under section 112(a) of the

CAA.

For a source category with fewer than

30 major sources, section 112(d)(3) of

the CAA directs that the MACT floor be

based on the average emission

limitation achieved by the best

performing five sources. The MACT

floor for new sources in a source

category is required to reflect the level

of control being achieved by the best

controlled similar source. In setting the

MACT for spandex production using

reaction spinning, we looked at the level

of control presently in place at the two

reaction spinning major source

facilities.

At reaction spinning process spandex

production facilities, there are a number

of process vent streams containing HAP.

The process vent types include vents

associated with prepolymer reactors,

dryers, and the solvent recovery system.

The floor for process vents at reaction

spinning processes requires 95 percent

control by venting through a closed vent

system to a control device. The two

reaction spinning process facilities

already have emission controls in place

for process vents that are equivalent to

those required by the Generic MACT

NESHAP. We are not aware of any

additional controls that would get

further emissions reductions that would

be more effective or reasonable for

beyond-the-floor control for process

vents. Therefore, MACT for process

vents is the floor level of control.

The storage vessel control

requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart

WW, also called ‘‘Level 2’’ storage

vessel controls, require the vessels to be

equipped with a floating roof or covered

and vented through a closed vent

system to a control device. The two

reaction spinning process facilities

already have Level 2 emission controls

on their storage vessels, and this level

of control is considered to be the floor.

We are not aware of any additional

controls that would get further

emissions reductions and be more

effective or reasonable for beyond-thefloor control for storage vessels.

Therefore, MACT for storage vessels at

reaction spinning process spandex

production facilities is the MACT floor.

During the fiber spinning step, HAP

are volatilized from the spin bath

solvent tanks, washing tanks, and the

wet belt dryers. The solvent tanks, wash

tanks, and wet belt dryers are covered

with hoods and vented to an emission

control device. There are also emissions

into the room air, and room air is vented

to an emission control device. At the

two facilities in this source category,

emissions from the fiber spinning lines

are controlled by capture and

subsequent routing to an emission

control device. The floor for fiber

spinning lines is capture of emissions

around the spinning, washing and wet

belt dryer areas of the spinning line and

76436 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

venting to a control device that reduces

HAP emissions by 95 weight-percent.

We are not aware of any additional

controls that would get further

emissions reductions and be more

effective or reasonable for beyond-thefloor control for fiber spinning lines.

Therefore, MACT for fiber spinning

lines is the floor level of control.

4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance,

Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements?

We selected the monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements of 40 CFR part 63,

subparts SS and WW, to demonstrate

and document compliance with the

spandex production standards. The

procedures and methods set out in these

subparts are, where appropriate, based

on procedures and methods that we

previously developed for use in

implementing standards for emission

point sources similar to those being

proposed for the Spandex Production

source category.

General compliance, monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements that would apply across

source categories and affected emission

points are contained within 40 CFR part

63, subpart YY (i.e., §§ 63.1108 through

63.1113). We specify the applicability

assessment procedures necessary to

determine whether an emission point is

required to apply control. These

procedures are dependent on the

emission point for which control

applicability needs to be assessed and

the form of the applicability cutoff

selected for an individual source

category (e.g., a HAP concentration

cutoff level, above which control is

required).

We selected monitoring (including

continuous monitoring), recordkeeping,

and reporting requirements included

under common control requirements in

subparts promulgated for storage vessels

(40 CFR part 63, subpart WW), and

closed vent systems, control devices,

recovery devices and routing to a fuel

gas system or a process (40 CFR part 63,

subpart SS). These subparts contain a

common set of monitoring,

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements. We established these

subparts to ensure consistency of the air

emission requirements applied to

similar emission points with pollutant

streams containing gaseous organic

HAP. The rationale for the

establishment of these subparts and

requirements contained within each

subpart is presented in the proposal

preamble for the Generic MACT

standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY

(63 FR 55186–55191).

We believe that the compliance,

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements of 40 CFR part

63, subparts WW and SS, are

appropriate for demonstrating and

documenting compliance with the

requirements proposed for the Spandex

Production source category. This is

because these requirements were

established for standards with similar

formats and similar emission points

with pollutant streams of gaseous

organic HAP for which we are requiring

MACT compliance demonstration and

documentation under this proposal.

D. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

Cost, and Economic Impacts

1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

There are no additional emissions

reductions achieved by the proposed

NESHAP. The level of control required

by the proposed NESHAP is already in

place at the two affected reaction

spinning facilities.

2. What Are the Cost Impacts?

The total estimated annual

compliance cost of the proposed

NESHAP for the Spandex Production

source category is $78,040. This

estimate includes annualized capital

costs for monitoring equipment

purchased. Annual costs also include

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting costs. Costs were not included

for control equipment since this is

already in place at the two reaction

spinning process facilities.

The capital costs are estimated to be

$32,820 (in 1998 dollars). The capital

costs are for purchase of thermocouples

and liquid flow transducers for CPMS

equipment, and closed vent systems

leak detection monitors. These costs are

more than likely an overestimate since

the two affected facilities already have

monitors on their carbon adsorbers.

3. What Are the Economic Impacts?

The goal of the economic impact

analysis is to estimate the market

response of the spandex production

facilities to the proposed NESHAP and

to determine the economic effects that

may result from the proposed NESHAP.

The Spandex Production source

category contains five facilities, but only

the two facilities that use the reaction

spinning process are affected by the

proposed NESHAP. These potentially

affected facilities are owned by one

company.

Spandex fiber production leads to

potential HAP emissions from fiber

spinning lines, storage tanks, and

process vents; however, the emission

sources are well controlled by the

affected spandex manufacturing

facilities. The mandated levels of

control are met at these sources;

therefore, no costs are expected to be

incurred by the spandex facilities in

order to comply with the proposed

NESHAP. Instead, the compliance costs

for the proposed NESHAP relate

primarily to monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping activities. The estimated

total annualized costs for the proposed

NESHAP are $78,040, which represents

less than 0.01 percent of the revenues of

the companies that own the spandex

manufacturing facilities. The proposed

NESHAP are, therefore, expected to

have a negligible impact on the Spandex

Production source category.

The economic impacts at the facility

and company levels are measured by

comparing the annualized compliance

costs for each entity to its revenues. A

cost-to-sales ratio is first calculated and

then is multiplied by 100 to convert the

ratio into percentages. For the proposed

NESHAP, a cost-to-sales ratio exceeding

1 percent is determined to be an initial

indicator of the potential for a

significant facility impact. Revenues at

the facility level are not available,

therefore estimated facility revenues

received from the sale of spandex fiber

are used. Both affected facilities are

expected to incur positive compliance

costs. The ratio of costs to estimated

revenues range from a low of 0.22

percent to a high of 0.35 percent. Thus,

on average, the economic impact of the

proposed NESHAP is minimal for the

facilities producing spandex fibers.

The share of compliance costs to

company sales are calculated to

determine company level impacts. One

company owns the two affected

facilities, so only one firm faces positive

compliance costs from the proposed

NESHAP. The ratio of costs to company

revenues is 0.10 percent. At the

company level, the proposed NESHAP

are not anticipated to have a significant

economic impact on companies that

own and operate the spandex fiber

facilities. For more information, consult

the economic impact analysis report

entitled Economic Impact Analysis:

Spandex Production, which is in the

docket for the spandex source category.

4. What Are the Nonair Health,

Environmental and Energy Impacts?

We believe that there would not be

significant adverse environmental or

energy impacts associated with the

proposed NESHAP for the Spandex

Production source category. The

industry’s baseline level of control is

high, and the proposed NESHAP are

currently being achieved for the

emission point types. Environmental

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76437

impacts from the application of the

control or recovery devices proposed for

the Spandex Production source category

are also expected to be minimal for

secondary air pollutants. In general, we

determine impacts relative to the

baseline that is set at the level of control

in absence of the proposed NESHAP.

There is no incremental increase in

emissions related to water pollution or

solid waste as a result of today’s

proposed NESHAP.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), we must

determine whether a proposed

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and

therefore subject to Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) review

and the requirements of the Executive

Order. The Executive Order defines

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that the

proposed NESHAP are not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under the terms of

Executive Order 12866 and are,

therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in the proposed NESHAP

have been submitted for approval to the

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An ICR

document has been prepared by EPA

(ICR No. 1983.01) and a copy may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at

the Office of Environmental

Information, Collection Strategies

Division (2822), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by

e-mail at ‘‘farmer.sandy@epa.gov,’’ or by

calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also

be downloaded from the internet at

‘‘http://www.epa.gov/icr.’’

Information is required to ensure

compliance with the proposed

NESHAP. If the relevant information

were collected less frequently, EPA

would not be reasonably assured that a

source is in compliance with the

proposed NESHAP. In addition, EPA’s

authority to take administrative action

would be reduced significantly.

The proposed NESHAP would require

owners or operators of affected sources

to retain records for a period of 5 years.

The 5 year retention period is consistent

with the provisions of the General

Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 and with

the 5 year record retention requirement

in the operating permit program under

title V of the CAA.

The recordkeeping and reporting

requirements of the proposed NESHAP

are specifically authorized by section

114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All

information submitted to us for which a

claim of confidentiality is made will be

safeguarded according to our policies in

40 CFR part 2, subpart B,

‘‘Confidentiality of Business

Information.’’

The EPA expects the proposed

NESHAP to affect a total of 75 facilities

over the first 3 years. The EPA assumes

that no new facilities will become

subject to the proposed NESHAP during

each of the first 3 years. The EPA

expects 75 existing facilities to be

affected by the proposed NESHAP, and

these existing facilities will begin

complying in the third year.

The estimated average annual burden

for the first 3 years after promulgation

of the NESHAP for the industries and

the implementing agency is outlined

below. You can find the details of this

information collection in the ‘‘Standard

Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR

No. 1983.01,’’ in Docket No. A–97–17.

Affected entity Total hours Labor costs

(10 3 $)

Capital

costs

(10 3 $)

Operating

and maintenance costs

(10 3 $)

Total costs

(10 3 $)

Industry .................................................................................................... 33,926 1,510 4,901 16 6,427

Implementing agency ............................................................................... 3,465 117 0 0 117

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. Control numbers for

EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR

part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Comments are requested on the

Agency’s need for this information, the

accuracy of the provided burden

estimates, and any suggested methods

for minimizing respondent burden,

including the use of automated

collection techniques. Send comments

on the ICR to the Director, Office of

Environmental Information, Collection

Strategies Division (2822), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,

DC 20460; and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Since OMB is required

to make a decision concerning the ICR

between 30 and 60 days after December

6, 2000, a comment to OMB is best

assured of having its full effect if OMB

receives it by January 5, 2001. The final

rule will respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

76438 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed rule.

The EPA also may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications and

that preempts State law unless the

Agency consults with State and local

officials early in the process of

developing the proposed rule.

If EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to

provide to OMB, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a federalism summary impact

statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include

a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with State and local

officials, a summary of the nature of

their concerns and the Agency’s

position supporting the need to issue

the regulation, and a statement of the

extent to which the concerns of State

and local officials have been met. Also,

when EPA transmits a draft final rule

with federalism implications to OMB for

review pursuant to Executive Order

12866, EPA must include a certification

from the Agency’s Federalism Official

stating that EPA has met the

requirements of Executive Order 13132

in a meaningful and timely manner.

The proposed NESHAP will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. No facilities

subject to the proposed NESHAP are

owned by State or local governments.

Therefore, State and local governments

will not have any direct compliance

costs resulting from the proposed

NESHAP. Furthermore, EPA is directed

to develop the proposed NESHAP by

section 112 of the CAA. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to the

proposed NESHAP.

D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, we

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or we consult with those

governments. If we comply by

consulting, we are required by

Executive Order 13084 to provide to the

OMB in a separately identified section

of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of our prior

consultation with representatives of

affected tribal governments, a summary

of the nature of their concerns, and a

statement supporting the need to issue

the regulation. In addition, Executive

Order 13084 requires us to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

Today’s proposed NESHAP do not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. No tribal governments are

believed to be affected by the proposed

NESHAP. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

the proposed NESHAP.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

we must generally prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any 1 year. Before

promulgating a rule for which a written

statement is needed, section 205 of the

UMRA generally requires us to identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives and adopt the

least costly, most cost effective, or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule. The

provisions of section 205 do not apply

when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows us to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost effective,

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before we establish

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of our regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

We have determined that the

proposed NESHAP do not contain a

Federal mandate that may result in

expenditures of $100 million or more by

State, local, and tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or the private sector in

any 1 year. The total cost to the private

sector is approximately $22.2 million

per year. The proposed NESHAP

contain no mandates affecting State,

local, or tribal governments. Thus,

today’s proposed NESHAP are not

subject to the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of the UMRA.

We have determined that the

proposed NESHAP contain no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments because they contain no

requirements that apply to such

governments or impose obligations

upon them.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s proposed rule on small

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76439

small business whose parent company

has fewer than 1000 employees (500 for

the Carbon Black source category); (2) a

small governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s proposed rule on

small entities, I certify that this action

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This proposed rule will not

impose any requirements on small

entities. There are no small entities

affected by this proposed rule.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113)

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use

voluntary consensus standards in their

regulatory and procurement activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business

practices) developed or adopted by one

or more voluntary consensus bodies.

The NTTAA directs EPA to provide

Congress, through annual reports to

OMB, with explanations when an

agency does not use available and

applicable voluntary consensus

standards.

The proposed NESHAP involve

technical standards. The EPA proposes

to use EPA Methods 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 2c, 2d,

2f, 2g, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 18, 25, 25a, 26, 26a,

316, and 320. Consistent with the

NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to

identify voluntary consensus standards

in addition to these EPA methods. One

voluntary consensus standard was

identified as applicable and EPA

proposes to use it in the proposed

NESHAP.

The American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) consensus standard,

ASTM D6420–99, Standard Test Method

for Determination of Gaseous Organic

Compounds by Direct Interface Gas

Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry

(GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases

described below for inclusion in the

proposed NESHAP in addition to EPA

Methods. Similar to EPA’s performancebased Method 18, ASTM D6420–99 is

also a performance-based method for

measurement of gaseous organic

compounds. However, ASTM D6420–99

was written to support the specific use

of highly portable and automated GC/

MS. While offering advantages over the

traditional Method 18, the ASTM

method does allow some less stringent

criteria for accepting GC/MS results

than required by Method 18. Therefore,

ASTM D6420–99 is a suitable

alternative to Method 18 where: (1) The

target compounds are those listed in

Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420–99, and (2)

the target concentration is between 150

parts per billion by volume and 100

ppmv.

For target compounds not listed in

Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420–99, but

potentially detected by mass

spectrometry, the regulation specifies

that the additional system continuing

calibration check after each run, as

detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM

method, must be followed, met,

documented, and submitted with the

data report even if there is no moisture

condenser used or the compound is not

considered water soluble. For target

compounds not listed in Table 1.1 of

ASTM D6420–99 and not amenable to

detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM

D6420–99 does not apply.

The EPA proposes to incorporate by

reference ASTM 6420–99 into 40 CFR

63.14 for application to subpart SS of

part 63. The EPA will also cite Method

18 as a GC option in addition to ASTM

D6420–99. This will allow the

continued use of other GC

configurations.

For EPA Methods 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 2c, 2d,

2f, 2g, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 25, 25a, 26, 26a, 316,

and 320, no applicable voluntary

consensus standards were found at this

time. The search and review results

have been documented and are placed

in the Generic MACT docket (Docket

No. A–97–17).

The EPA requests comment on

compliance demonstration requirements

proposed today and specifically invites

the public to identify potentially

applicable voluntary consensus

standards. Comments should explain

why the proposed NESHAP should

adopt these voluntary consensus

standards in lieu of EPA’s standards.

Emission test methods and performance

specifications submitted for evaluation

should be accompanied with a basis for

the recommendation, including method

validation data and the procedure used

to validate the candidate method (if a

method other than Method 301 of 40

CFR part 63, appendix A, is used).

H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

we have reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

The EPA interprets Executive Order

13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that are based on

health or safety risks, such that the

analysis required under section 5–501 of

the Executive Order has the potential to

influence the regulation. This proposal

is not subject to Executive Order 13045

because it is based on technology

performance and not on health or safety

risks. Additionally, the proposed

NESHAP are not economically

significant as defined by Executive

Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous air

pollutants, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: November 3, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR AFFECTED

SOURCE CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Part 63 is proposed to be amended

by adding a new subpart XX to read as

follows:

Subpart XX—National Emission

Standards for Ethylene Manufacturing

Process Units: Heat Exchange

Systems and Waste

Sec.

Introduction

63.1080 What does this subpart do?

63.1081 When must I comply with the

requirements of this subpart?

Applicability for Heat Exchange Systems

63.1082 Does this subpart apply to my heat

exchange system?

76440 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

63.1083 What heat exchange systems are

exempt from the requirements of this

subpart?

Heat Exchange System Requirements

63.1084 What are the general requirements

for heat exchange systems?

Monitoring Requirements for Heat Exchange

Systems

63.1085 How must I monitor for leaks to

cooling water?

63.1086 Where must I monitor for leaks to

cooling water?

Repair Requirements for Heat Exchange

Systems

63.1087 What actions must I take if a leak

is detected?

63.1088 In what situations may I delay leak

repair, and what actions must I take for

delay of repair?

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

for Heat Exchange Systems

63.1089 What records must I keep?

63.1090 What reports must I submit?

Background for Waste Requirements

63.1091 What do the waste requirements

do?

63.1092 What are the major differences

between the requirements of 40 CFR part

61, subpart FF, and the waste

requirements for ethylene production

sources?

Applicability for Waste Requirements

63.1093 Does this subpart apply to my

waste streams?

63.1094 What waste streams are exempt

from the requirements of this subpart?

Waste Requirements

63.1095 What specific requirements must I

comply with?

63.1096 What requirements must I comply

with if I transfer waste offsite?

Definitions for Waste Requirements

63.1097 What definitions do I need to

know?

Implementation and Enforcement

63.1098 Who implements and enforces this

subpart?

Tables to Subpart XX

Table 1 to Subpart XX—Hazardous Air

Pollutants

Table 2 to Subpart XX—Specific Differences

in Requirements of this subpart and 40

CFR Part 61, Subpart FF

Table 3 to Subpart XX—Sections of 40 CFR

Part 61, Subpart FF, that are not

Included in the Requirements of this

Subpart

Introduction

§ 63.1080 What does this subpart do?

This subpart establishes requirements

for controlling emissions of hazardous

air pollutants (HAP) from heat exchange

systems and waste streams at new and

existing ethylene manufacturing process

units.

§ 63.1081 When must I comply with the

requirements of this subpart?

You must comply with the

requirements of this subpart according

to the schedule specified in

§ 63.1102(a).

Applicability for Heat Exchange

Systems

§ 63.1082 Does this subpart apply to my

heat exchange system?

The provisions of this subpart apply

to your heat exchange system if you

own or operate an ethylene

manufacturing process unit expressly

referenced to this subpart XX from

subpart YY of this part.

§ 63.1083 What heat exchange systems

are exempt from the requirements of this

subpart?

Your heat exchange system is exempt

from the requirements in §§ 63.1084 and

63.1085 if it meets at least one of the

criteria in paragraphs (a) through (f) of

this section.

(a) Your heat exchange system

operates with the minimum pressure on

the cooling water side at least 35

kilopascals greater than the maximum

pressure on the process side.

(b) Your heat exchange system

contains an intervening cooling fluid,

containing less than 5 percent by weight

of HAP, between the process and the

cooling water. This intervening fluid

must serve to isolate the cooling water

from the process fluid and must not be

sent through a cooling tower or

discharged. For purposes of this section,

discharge does not include emptying for

maintenance purposes.

(c) The once-through heat exchange

system is subject to a National Pollution

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit with an allowable discharge

limit of 1 part per million by weight

(ppmw) or less above influent

concentration or 10 percent or less

above influent concentration, whichever

is greater.

(d) Your once-through heat exchange

system is subject to a NPDES permit that

meets the conditions in paragraphs

(d)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) The permit requires monitoring of

a parameter or condition to detect a leak

of process fluids to cooling water.

(2) The permit specifies or includes

the normal range of the parameter or

condition.

(3) The permit requires monthly or

more frequent monitoring for the

parameters selected as leak indicators.

(4) The permit requires you to report

and correct leaks to the cooling water

when the parameter or condition

exceeds the normal range.

(e) Your recirculating heat exchange

system cools process fluids that contain

less than 5 percent by weight of HAP.

(f) The once-through heat exchange

system cools process fluids that contain

less than 5 percent by weight of HAP.

Heat Exchange System Requirements

§ 63.1084 What are the general

requirements for heat exchange systems?

Unless you meet one of the

requirements for exemptions in

§ 63.1083, you must meet the

requirements in paragraphs (a) through

(d) of this section.

(a) Monitor the cooling water for the

presence of substances that indicate a

leak according to §§ 63.1085 and

63.1086.

(b) If you detect a leak, repair it

according to § 63.1087 unless repair is

delayed according to § 63.1088.

(c) Keep the records specified in

§ 63.1089.

(d) Submit the reports specified in

§ 63.1090.

Monitoring Requirements for Heat

Exchange Systems

§ 63.1085 How must I monitor for leaks to

cooling water?

You must monitor for leaks to cooling

water according to the requirements in

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this

section.

(a) Monitor the cooling water for HAP

(either in total or speciated) or other

representative substances (e.g., total

organic carbon or volatile organic

compounds (VOC)) that indicate the

presence of a leak in the heat exchange

system.

(b) Monitor the cooling water monthly

for heat exchange systems at existing

sources; weekly for heat exchange

systems at new sources.

(c) Determine the concentration of the

monitored substance in the cooling

water using any method listed in 40

CFR part 136, as long as the method is

sensitive to concentrations as low as 10

ppmw. Use the same method for both

entrance and exit samples. Alternative

methods may be used upon approval by

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Administrator.

(d) Take a minimum of three sets of

samples at each entrance and exit as

defined in § 63.1086(a).

(e) Calculate the average entrance and

exit concentrations, correcting for the

addition of make-up water and

evaporative losses, if applicable. Using

a one-sided statistical procedure at the

0.05 level of significance, if the exit

mean concentration is at least 1 ppmw

or 10 percent of the entrance mean,

whichever is greater, you have detected

a leak.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76441

§ 63.1086 Where must I monitor for leaks

to cooling water?

You must collect samples at the

entrance and exit of each nondirectcontact heat exchanger in the ethylene

manufacturing process unit used to cool

fluids containing 5 percent by weight

organic HAP (or other mentioned

substances) or greater.

Repair Requirements for Heat Exchange

Systems

§ 63.1087 What actions must I take if a leak

is detected?

If a leak is detected, you must comply

with the requirements in paragraphs (a)

and (b) of this section unless repair is

delayed according to § 63.1088.

(a) Repair the leak as soon as practical

but not later than 15 calender days after

you received the results of monitoring

tests that indicated a leak. You must

repair the leak unless you demonstrate

that the results are due to a condition

other than a leak.

(b) Once the leak has been repaired,

confirm that the heat exchange system

has been repaired according to the

monitoring requirements in §§ 63.1085

and 63.1086 within 7 calender days of

the repair or startup, whichever is later.

§ 63.1088 In what situations may I delay

leak repair, and what actions must I take for

delay of repair?

You may delay repair of heat

exchange systems for which leaks have

been detected if the leaking equipment

is isolated from the process. You may

also delay repair if repair is technically

infeasible without a shutdown, and you

meet one of the conditions in

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this

section.

(a) If a shutdown is expected within

15 calendar days of determining delay

of repair is necessary, you are not

required to have a special shutdown

before that planned shutdown.

(b) If a shutdown is not expected

within 15 calendar days of determining

delay of repair is necessary, you may

delay repair if a shutdown for repair

would cause greater emissions than the

potential emissions from delaying repair

until the next shutdown of the process

equipment associated with the leaking

heat exchanger. You must document the

basis for the determination that a

shutdown for repair would cause greater

emissions than the emissions likely to

result from delay of repair. The

documentation process must include

the activities in paragraphs (b)(1)

through (3) of this section.

(1) Specify a schedule for completing

the repair as soon as practical.

(2) Calculate the potential emissions

from the leaking heat exchanger by

multiplying the concentration of HAP

(or other monitored substances) in the

cooling water from the leaking heat

exchanger by the flowrate of the cooling

water from the leaking heat exchanger

and by the expected duration of the

delay.

(3) Determine emissions from purging

and depressurizing the equipment that

will result from the unscheduled

shutdown for the repair.

(c) If repair is delayed for reasons

other than those specified in paragraph

(a) or (b) of this section, you may delay

repair a maximum of 30 calendar days.

You must demonstrate that the

necessary parts or personnel were not

available.

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements for Heat Exchange

Systems

§ 63.1089 What records must I keep?

You must keep the records in

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this

section, according to the requirements

of § 63.1109(c).

(a) Monitoring data required by

§ 63.1085 that indicates a leak, the date

the leak was detected, or, if applicable,

the basis for determining there is no

leak.

(b) The dates of efforts to repair leaks.

(c) The method or procedures used to

confirm repair of a leak, and the date the

repair was confirmed.

(d) Documentation of delay of repair

as specified in § 63.1088.

§ 63.1090 What reports must I submit?

If you delay repair for your heat

exchange system, you must report the

delay of repair in the semiannual report

required by § 63.1110(e). If the leak

remains unrepaired, you must continue

to report the delay of repair in

semiannual reports until you repair the

leak. You must include the information

in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this

section in the semiannual report.

(a) The fact that a leak was detected,

and the date that the leak was detected.

(b) Whether or not the leak has been

repaired.

(c) The reasons for delay of repair. If

you delayed the repair as provided in

§ 63.1088(b), documentation of

emissions estimates.

(d) If a leak remains unrepaired, the

expected date of repair.

(e) If a leak is repaired, the date the

leak was successfully repaired.

Background for Waste Requirements

§ 63.1091 What do the waste requirements

do?

The waste requirements in this

subpart require you to comply with

requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart

FF, National Emission Standards for

Benzene Waste Operations. Because the

requirements of subpart FF of 40 CFR

part 61 regulate benzene emissions and

this subpart regulates HAP, there are

some differences between the ethylene

production waste requirements and

those of subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61.

Additionally, some compliance options

available in subpart FF of 40 CFR part

61 do not apply to ethylene production

sources.

§ 63.1092 What are the major differences

between the requirements of 40 CFR part

61, subpart FF, and the waste requirements

for ethylene production sources?

The major differences between the

requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart

FF and the requirements for ethylene

production sources are listed in

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this

section.

(a) The requirements for ethylene

production sources apply to all ethylene

production sources that are part of a

major source. The requirements do not

include a provision to exempt sources

with a total annual benzene quantity

less than 10 megagrams per year, or any

similar cutoff, from control

requirements.

(b) The requirements for ethylene

production sources apply to waste

streams containing any of the HAP

listed in Table 1 to this subpart, not

only waste streams containing benzene.

(c) The requirements for ethylene

production sources do not include the

compliance options at 40 CFR

61.342(c)(3)(ii), (d) and (e).

Applicability for Waste Requirements

§ 63.1093 Does this subpart apply to my

waste streams?

The waste stream provisions of this

subpart apply to your waste streams if

you own or operate an ethylene

production facility expressly referenced

to this subpart XX from 40 CFR part 63,

subpart YY.

§ 63.1094 What waste streams are exempt

from the requirements of this subpart?

The types of waste described in

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are

exempt from this subpart.

(a) Waste in the form of gases or

vapors that is emitted from process

fluids.

(b) Waste that is contained in a

segregated storm water sewer system.

Waste Requirements

§ 63.1095 What specific requirements

must I comply with?

For waste containing the HAP listed

in Table 1 to this subpart, you must

76442 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

comply with all of the requirements of

40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, as modified

by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this

section.

(a) Use the term ‘‘HAP’’ instead of

‘‘benzene’’ everywhere ‘‘benzene’’

appears in 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF,

unless Table 2 to this subpart instructs

an alternate substitution for a phrase

containing ‘‘benzene,’’ as discussed in

paragraph (b) of this section. For the

purposes of the waste requirements of

this subpart, HAP means any of the

compounds listed in Table 1 to this

subpart.

(b) Apply the wording differences

listed in Table 2 to this subpart as

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of

this section.

(1) Table 2 to this subpart gives a

referenced section of 40 CFR part 61,

subpart FF, and a phrase that appears in

that section. Instead of the phrase in 40

CFR part 61, subpart FF, use the phrase

in the last column of Table 2 to this

subpart to produce the requirements for

ethylene production sources.

(2) If a section of 40 CFR part 61,

subpart FF, references another section of

subpart FF, you must comply with the

referenced section, except use the

wording differences specified in Table 2

to this subpart to produce the

requirements for ethylene production

sources.

(c) Table 3 to this subpart shows the

sections of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF,

that are not included in the waste

requirements of this subpart.

§ 63.1096 What requirements must I

comply with if I transfer waste offsite?

If you elect to transfer waste offsite,

you must comply with the requirements

in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this

section.

(a) Include a notice with the shipment

or transport of each waste stream. The

notice shall state that the waste stream

contains organic HAP that are to be

treated in accordance with the

provisions of this subpart. When the

transport is continuous or ongoing (for

example, discharge to a publicly-owned

treatment works), the notice shall be

submitted to the treatment operator

initially and whenever there is a change

in the required treatment.

(b) You may not transfer the waste

stream unless the transferee has

submitted to the EPA a written

certification that the transferee will

manage and treat any waste stream

received from a source subject to the

requirements of this subpart in

accordance with the requirements of

this subpart. The certifying entity may

revoke the written certification by

sending a written statement to the EPA

and you giving at least 90 days notice

that the certifying entity is rescinding

acceptance of responsibility for

compliance with the regulatory

provisions listed in this paragraph (b).

Upon expiration of the notice period,

you may not transfer the waste stream

to the treatment operation.

(c) By providing this written

certification to the EPA, the certifying

entity accepts responsibility for

compliance with the regulatory

provisions in paragraph (b) of this

section with respect to any shipment of

waste covered by the written

certification. Failure to abide by any of

those provisions with respect to such

shipments may result in enforcement

action by the EPA against the certifying

entity in accordance with the

enforcement provisions applicable to

violations of those provisions by owners

or operators of sources.

(d) Written certifications and

revocation statements to the EPA from

the transferees of waste shall be signed

by the responsible official of the

certifying entity, provide the name and

address of the certifying entity, and be

sent to the appropriate EPA Regional

Office at the addresses listed in 40 CFR

63.13. Such written certifications are

not transferable by the treater.

Definitions for Waste Requirements

§ 63.1097 What definitions do I need to

know?

(a) Unless defined in paragraph (b) of

this section, definitions for terms used

in this subpart are provided in the Clean

Air Act, § 63.1103(e), or § 61.341, except

use the wording differences specified in

Table 2 to this subpart to produce the

definitions for ethylene production

sources.

(b) The following definitions apply to

terms used in this subpart:

Process wastewater means water

which comes in contact with any of the

HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart

during manufacturing or processing

operations conducted within an

ethylene manufacturing process unit.

Process wastewater is not organic

wastes, process fluids, product tank

drawdown, cooling water blowdown,

steam trap condensate, or landfill

leachate. Process wastewater includes

direct-contact cooling water.

Implementation and Enforcement

§ 63.1098 Who implements and enforces

this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented

and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated

authority such as the applicable State,

local, or tribal agency. If the EPA

Administrator has delegated authority to

a State, local, or tribal agency, then that

agency has the authority to implement

and enforce this subpart. Contact the

applicable EPA Regional Office to find

out if this subpart is delegated to a State,

local, or tribal agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority of this subpart to

a State, local, or tribal agency under

subpart E of this part, the authorities

contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(5) of this section are retained by the

EPA Administrator and are not

transferred to the State, local, or tribal

agency.

(1) Approval of alternatives to the

non-opacity emissions standards in

§§ 63.1084, 63.1085 and 63.1095, under

§ 63.6(g). Where these standards

reference another subpart, the cited

provisions will be delegated according

to the delegation provisions of the

referenced subpart.

(2) [Reserved]

(3) Approval of major alternatives to

test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and

(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

(4) Approval of major alternatives to

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as

defined in § 63.90.

(5) Approval of major alternatives to

recordkeeping and reporting under

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

TABLES TO SUBPART XX

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART XX.—

HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

Hazardous air pollutant a CAS

number a

Benzene ........................................ 71432

1,3-Butadiene ............................... 106990

Cumene ........................................ 98828

Ethyl benzene ............................... 100414

Hexane ......................................... 110543

Naphthalene ................................. 91203

Styrene ......................................... 100425

Toluene ......................................... 108883

o-Xylene ........................................ 95476

m-Xylene ....................................... 108383

p-Xylene ........................................ 106423

a Includes all isomers of listed pollutant although isomers may have a different CAS

number.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76443

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART XX.—SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES IN REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBPART AND 40 CFR PART 61,

SUBPART FF

To comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart

XX, in * * * Instead of the phrase: Use the phrase a:

§ 61.341 ...................................................... benzene ........................................................................... any HAP.

§ 61.342(c) .................................................. at which the total annual benzene quantity from facility

waste is equal to or greater than 10 Mg/yr as determined in paragraph (a) of this section.

to which the wastewater requirements of

this subpart XX apply.

§ 61.342(c)(1) ............................................. benzene ........................................................................... any HAP.

§ 61.342(c)(2) ............................................. benzene concentration .................................................... total HAP concentration.

§ 61.342(c)(3) ............................................. either paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section ................ paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.

§ 61.348(a)(1)(i) .......................................... level ................................................................................. total level.

§ 61.348(b)(2)(i) .......................................... benzene ........................................................................... total HAP.

§ 61.349(a)(2)(i)(A) ..................................... reduce the organic emissions vented to it by 95 weight

percent or greater.

reduce the HAP or total organic compound emissions vented to it by 98

weight percent or greater.

§ 61.349(a)(2)(ii) ......................................... recover or control the organic emissions vented to it

with an efficiency of 95 weight percent or greater, or

shall recover or control the benzene emissions vented to it with an efficiency of 98 weight percent or

greater.

recover or control the HAP or total organic compound emissions vented to it

with an efficiency of 98 weight percent

or greater.

§ 61.349(a)(2)(iv)(A) ................................... the device shall recover or control the organic emissions vented to it with an efficiency of 95 weight percent or greater, or shall recover or control the benzene emissions vented to it with an efficiency of 98

weight percent or greater.

the device shall recover or control the

HAP or total organic compound emissions vented to it with an efficiency of

98 weight percent or greater.

§ 61.349(a)(2)(iv)(B) ................................... the control device will achieve an emission control efficiency of either 95 percent or greater for organic

compounds or 98 percent or greater for benzene.

the control device will achieve an emission control efficiency of 98 percent or

greater for HAP or total organic compounds.

§ 61.354(a)(1) ............................................. at least once per month by collecting and analyzing

one or more samples using the procedures specified

in § 61.355(c)(3).

continuously.

§ 61.354(c)(6)(i) .......................................... either the concentration level of the organic compounds

or the concentration level of benzene.

the concentration level of the organic

compounds.

§ 61.354(c)(7)(i) .......................................... either the concentration level of the organic compounds

or the benzene concentration level.

the concentration level of the organic

compounds.

§ 61.354(c)(8) ............................................. either the concentration level of the organic compounds

or the benzene concentration level.

the concentration level of the organic

compounds.

§ 61.354(d) .................................................. either the concentration level of the organic compounds

or the concentration level of benzene.

the concentration level of the organic

compounds.

§ 61.354(d) .................................................. either the organic concentration or the benzene concentration.the organic concentration.

§ 61.355(c)(3)(v) ......................................... benzene ........................................................................... total HAP.

§ 61.355(e)(3) ............................................. benzene ........................................................................... total HAP.

§ 61.355(e)(4) ............................................. benzene ........................................................................... total HAP.

§ 61.355(f)(3) .............................................. benzene ........................................................................... total HAP.

§ 61.355(f)(4)(iii) ......................................... C=Concentration of benzene .......................................... C=Sum of concentrations of HAP measured in the exhaust, ppmv.

§ 61.355(f)(4)(iii) ......................................... K=Conversion factor=3.24 kg/m31 for benzene .............. K=Weighted average density of HAP at

standard conditions, kg/m3.

§ 61.355(g) .................................................. benzene concentration .................................................... total HAP concentration.

§ 61.355(i) ................................................... either the organic reduction efficiency requirement or

the benzene reduction efficiency requirement specified under § 61.349(a)(2).

the HAP or total organic compound reduction efficiency specified under

§ 61.349(a)(2).

§ 61.355(i)(3)(iii) .......................................... benzene concentration .................................................... concentration of HAP i.

§ 61.355(i)(3)(iii) .......................................... molecular weight of benzene .......................................... molecular weight of HAP i.

§ 61.355(i)(3)(iii) .......................................... number of organic compounds in the vent stream ......... number of organic compounds or HAP in

the vent stream.

§ 61.355(i)(4) .............................................. benzene ........................................................................... total HAP.

§ 61.356(b)(1) ............................................. waste stream identification, water content, whether or

not the waste stream is a process wastewater

stream, annual waste quantity, range of benzene

concentrations, annual average flow-weighted benzene concentration, and annual benzene quantity.

waste stream identification, whether or

not the waste stream is a process

wastewater stream, range of HAP concentrations, and annual average flowweighted HAP concentrations.

§ 61.356(j)(8) .............................................. organics or concentration of benzene ............................ organics.

§ 61.356(j)(8) .............................................. organics or the concentration of benzene ...................... organics.

§ 61.356(j)(9) .............................................. organics or the concentration of benzene ...................... organics.

§ 61.357(a) .................................................. within 90 days after January 7, 1993 ............................. as part of the initial notification report required in paragraph (c) of § 63.1110.

§ 61.357(a) .................................................. § 61.342 ........................................................................... 40 CFR part 63, subpart XX.

§ 61.357(a) .................................................. the report shall include the following information: .......... the report shall include the information in

paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) except

(a)(3)(i) of this section.

76444 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART XX.—SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES IN REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBPART AND 40 CFR PART 61,

SUBPART FF—Continued

To comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart

XX, in * * * Instead of the phrase: Use the phrase a:

§ 61.357(a)(3)(iii) ........................................ Annual waste quantity for the waste stream .................. If the stream is managed or treated in an

exempt unit according to § 61.348(b),

annual waste quantity for the waste

stream.

§ 61.357(a)(4) ............................................. paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3) ........................................ paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) except

(a)(3)(i) of this section.

§ 61.357(d) .................................................. if the total annual benzene quantity from facility waste

is equal to or greater than 10 Mg/yr, then the owner

or operator.

the owner or operator to which the wastewater requirements of 40 CFR part 63,

subpart XX apply.

§ 61.357(d)(1) ............................................. within 90 days after January 7, 1993 ............................. with the Notification of Compliance Status

report required by paragraph (d) of

§ 63.1110.

§ 61.357(d)(2) ............................................. paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section .................. paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) except

(a)(3)(i) of this section.

§ 61.357(d)(7)(iii) ........................................ concentration of benzene ................................................ total concentration of HAP.

aFor the purpose of this table and the waste requirements of this subpart, HAP means any of the compounds listed in Table 1 to this subpart.

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART XX.—SECTIONS

OF 40 CFR PART 61, SUBPART FF,

THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SUBPART

Section Paragraphs

61.340 ......... all.

61.342 ......... (a), (b), (c)(3)(ii), (d), (e), (f).

61.348 ......... (d)(3), (d)(4).

61.355 ......... (a), (j), (k).

61.356 ......... (b)(2)(ii),(b)(3) through (5).

61.357 ......... (a)(1), (a)(3)(i), (b), (c), (d)(3)

through (5).

Subpart SS—[Amended]

3. Section 63.983 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and

(ii);

b. Revising the heading for paragraph

(b); and

c. Adding paragraph (b)(4).

The revisions and addition read as

follows:

§ 63.983 Closed vent systems.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) Properly install, maintain, and

operate a flow indicator that is capable

of taking periodic readings. Records

shall be generated as specified in

§ 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(A). The flow indicator

shall be installed at the entrance to any

bypass line.

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the

non-diverting position with a car-seal or

a lock-and-key type configuration.

Records shall be generated as specified

in § 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(B).

* * * * *

(b) Closed vent system inspection and

monitoring requirements. * * *

(4) For each bypass line, the owner or

operator shall comply with paragraph

(b)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section.

(i) If a flow indicator is used, take a

reading at least once every 15 minutes.

(ii) If the bypass line valve is secured

in the non-diverting position, visually

inspect the seal or closure mechanism at

least once every month to verify that the

valve is maintained in the non-diverting

position, and the vent stream is not

diverted through the bypass line.

* * * * *

4. Section 63.992 is added to read as

follows:

§ 63.992 Implementation and enforcement.

(a) This subpart can be implemented

and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated

authority such as the applicable State,

local, or tribal agency. If the EPA

Administrator has delegated authority to

a State, local, or tribal agency, then that

agency has the authority to implement

and enforce this subpart. Contact the

applicable EPA Regional Office to find

out if this subpart is delegated to a State,

local, or tribal agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority of this subpart to

a State, local, or tribal agency under

subpart E of this part, the authorities

contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(5) of this section are retained by the

EPA Administrator and are not

transferred to the State, local, or tribal

agency.

(1) Approval of alternatives to the

non-opacity emissions standards in

§§ 63.983(a) and (d), 63.984, 63.685(a),

63.986(a), 63.987(a), 63.988(a),

63.990(a), 63.993(a), 63.994(a), and

63.995(a) under § 63.6(g). Where these

standards reference another subpart, the

cited provisions will be delegated

according to the delegation provisions

of the referenced subpart.

(2) [Reserved]

(3) Approval of major alternatives to

test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and

(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

(4) Approval of major alternatives to

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as

defined in § 63.90.

(5) Approval of major alternatives to

recordkeeping and reporting under

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

5. Section 63.996 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(7) through (10) as

follows:

§ 63.996 General monitoring requirements

for control and recovery devices.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(7) For each CPMS, the owner or

operator must meet the requirements in

paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this

section.

(i) The CPMS must complete a

minimum of one cycle of operation for

each successive 15-minute period.

(ii) To calculate a valid hourly

average, there must be at least four

equally spaced values for that hour,

excluding data collected during the

periods described in paragraph (c)(5) of

this section.

(iii) Calculate a daily average using all

of the valid hourly averages for each

day.

(8) For each temperature monitoring

device, meet the requirements in

paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (viii) of this

section.

(i) Locate the temperature sensor in a

position that provides a representative

temperature.

(ii) For a noncryogenic temperature

range, use a temperature sensor with a

minimum tolerance of 2.2 °C or 0.75

percent of the temperature value,

whichever is larger.

(iii) For a cryogenic temperature

range, use a temperature sensor with a

minimum tolerance of 2.2 °C or 2

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76445

percent of the temperature value,

whichever is larger.

(iv) Shield the temperature sensor

system from electromagnetic

interference and chemical

contaminants.

(v) If a chart recorder is used, it must

have a sensitivity in the minor division

of at least 11 °C.

(vi) Perform an electronic calibration

at least semiannually according to the

procedures in the manufacturer’s

owners manual. Following the

electronic calibration, conduct a

temperature sensor validation check in

which a second or redundant

temperature sensor placed nearby the

process temperature sensor must yield a

reading within 16.7 °C of the process

temperature sensor’s reading.

(vii) Conduct calibration and

validation checks any time the sensor

exceeds the manufacturer’s specified

maximum operating temperature range

or install a new temperature sensor.

(viii) At least monthly, inspect all

components for integrity and all

electrical connections for continuity,

oxidation, and galvanic corrosion.

(9) For each pressure measurement

device, the owner or operator must meet

the requirements in paragraphs (c)(9)(i)

through (vii) of this section.

(i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or

as close to a position that provides a

representative measurement of the

pressure.

(ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating

pressure, vibration, and internal and

external corrosion.

(iii) Use a gauge with a minimum

tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a

transducer with a minimum tolerance of

1 percent of the pressure range.

(iv) Check pressure tap pluggage

daily.

(v) Using a manometer, check gauge

calibration quarterly and transducer

calibration monthly.

(vi) Conduct calibration checks any

time the sensor exceeds the

manufacturer’s specified maximum

operating pressure range or install a new

pressure sensor.

(vii) At least monthly, inspect all

components for integrity, all electrical

connections for continuity, and all

mechanical connections for leakage.

(10) For each pH measurement device,

the owner or operator must meet the

requirements in paragraphs (c)(10)(i)

through (iv) of this section.

(i) Locate the pH sensor in a position

that provides a representative

measurement of pH.

(ii) Ensure the sample is properly

mixed and representative of the fluid to

be measured.

(iii) Check the pH meter’s calibration

on at least two points every 8 hours of

process operation.

(iv) At least monthly, inspect all

components for integrity and all

electrical connections for continuity.

* * * * *

6. Section 63.997 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii);

b. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii)

introductory text;

c. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(D);

d. Adding paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(E);

e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iv)

introductory text;

f. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(B)(2)

and (3); and

g. Adding paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(F)

through (K).

The revisions and additions read as

follows:

§ 63.997 Performance test and compliance

assessment requirements for control

devices.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Gas volumetric flow rate. The gas

volumetric flow rate shall be

determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,

2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix

A, as appropriate.

(iii) Total organic regulated material

or TOC concentration. To determine

compliance with a parts per million by

volume total organic regulated material

or TOC limit, the owner or operator

shall use Method 18 or 25A of 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A, as applicable.

Alternatively, any other method or data

that have been validated according to

the applicable procedures in Method

301 of appendix A to this part may be

used. The procedures specified in

paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A) through (E) of

this section shall be used to calculate

parts per million by volume

concentration, corrected to 3 percent

oxygen if a combustion device is the

control device and supplemental

combustion air is used to combust the

emissions.

* * * * *

(D) To measure the total organic

regulated material concentration at the

outlet of a combustion control device,

use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A, or ASTM D6420–99

(incorporated by reference). For a

combustion control device, you must

first determine which regulated material

compounds are present in the inlet gas

stream using process knowledge or the

screening procedure described in

Method 18. In conducting the

performance test, analyze samples

collected at the outlet of the combustion

control device as specified in Method 18

or ASTM D6420–99 for the regulated

material compounds present at the inlet

of the control device.

(E) To measure the TOC concentration

of the outlet vent stream, use Method

25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,

according to the procedures in

paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(E)(1) through (4) of

this section.

(1) Calibrate the instrument on the

predominant regulated material

compound.

(2) The test results are acceptable if

the response from the high level

calibration gas is at least 20 times the

standard deviation for the response from

the zero calibration gas when the

instrument is zeroed on its most

sensitive scale.

(3) The span value of the analyzer

must be less than 100 parts per million

by volume.

(4) Report the results as carbon,

calculated according to Equation 25A–1

of Method 25A.

(iv) Percent reduction calculation. To

determine compliance with a percent

reduction requirement, the owner or

operator shall use Method 18, 25, or

25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as

applicable. Alternatively, any other

method or data that have been validated

according to the applicable procedures

in Method 301 of appendix A to this

part may be used. The procedures

specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(A)

through (K) of this section shall be used

to calculate percent reduction

efficiency.

* * * * *

(F) To measure inlet and outlet

concentrations of total organic regulated

material, use Method 18 of 40 CFR part

60, appendix A, or ASTM D6420–99

(incorporated by reference as specified

in § 63.14). In conducting the

performance test, collect and analyze

samples as specified in Method 18 or

ASTM D6420–99. You must collect

samples simultaneously at the inlet and

outlet of the control device. If the

performance test is for a combustion

control device, you must first determine

which regulated material compounds

are present in the inlet gas stream (i.e.,

uncontrolled emissions) using process

knowledge or the screening procedure

described in Method 18. Quantify the

emissions for the regulated material

compounds present in the inlet gas

stream for both the inlet and outlet gas

streams for the combustion device.

(G) To determine inlet and outlet

concentrations of TOC, use Method 25

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Measure

the total gaseous non-methane organic

(TGNMO) concentration of the inlet and

outlet vent streams using the procedures

76446 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

of Method 25. Use the TGNMO

concentration in Equations 4 and 5 of

paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.

(H) Method 25A may be used instead

of Method 25 to measure inlet and

outlet concentrations of TOC if the

condition in either paragraph

(e)(2)(iv)(H)(1) or (2) of this section is

met.

(1) The concentration at the inlet to

the control system and the required

level of control would result in exhaust

TGNMO concentrations of 50 parts per

million by volume or less.

(2) Because of the high efficiency of

the control device, the anticipated

TGNMO concentration of the control

device exhaust is 50 parts per million by

volume or less, regardless of the inlet

concentration.

(I) To measure hydrogen halide and

halogen concentrations, use Method 26

in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Use

a minimum sampling time of 1 hour.

Use Method 26A in lieu of Method 26

when measuring emissions at the outlet

of a scrubber where the potential for

mist carryover exists.

(J) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas

stream to the control device contains

formaldehyde, you must conduct

emissions testing according to

paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(J)(1) or (2) of this

section.

(1) If you elect to comply with a

percent reduction requirement and

formaldehyde is the principal regulated

material compound (i.e., greater than 50

percent of the regulated material

compounds in the stream by volume),

you must use Method 316 or 320 of

appendix A to this part to measure

formaldehyde at the inlet and outlet of

the control device. Use the percent

reduction in formaldehyde as a

surrogate for the percent reduction in

total regulated material emissions.

(2) If you elect to comply with an

outlet total organic regulated material

concentration or TOC concentration

limit, and the uncontrolled or inlet gas

stream to the control device contains

greater than 10 percent (by volume)

formaldehyde, you must use Method

316 or 320 of appendix A to this part to

separately determine the formaldehyde

concentration. Calculate the total

organic regulated material concentration

or TOC concentration by totaling the

formaldehyde emissions measured

using Method 316 or 320 and the other

regulated material compound emissions

measured using Method 18 or 25/25A.

(K) You may use ASTM D6420–99

(incorporated by reference as specified

in § 63.14) in lieu of Method 18 of 40

CFR part 60, appendix A, if a minimum

of one sample/analysis cycle is

completed at least every 15 minutes,

and the condition in paragraph

(e)(2)(iv)(K)(1) or (2) of this section is

met.

(1) The target compounds are listed in

Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420–99, and the

target concentration is between 150

parts per billion by volume and 100

parts per million by volume.

(2) The target compounds are not

listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420–

99, but are potentially detected by mass

spectrometry. In this case, an additional

system continuing calibration check

after each run, as detailed in Section

10.5.3 of ASTM D6420–99, must be

followed, documented, and submitted

with the performance test report even if

you do not use a moisture condenser or

the compound is not considered

soluble.

* * * * *

Subpart TT—[Amended]

7. Section 63.1000 is amended by

adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 63.1000 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) Implementation and enforcement.

This subpart can be implemented and

enforced by the EPA, or a delegated

authority such as the applicable State,

local, or tribal agency. If the EPA

Administrator has delegated authority to

a State, local, or tribal agency, then that

agency has the authority to implement

and enforce this subpart. Contact the

applicable EPA Regional Office to find

out if this subpart is delegated to a State,

local, or tribal agency.

(1) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority of this subpart to

a State, local, or tribal agency under

subpart E of this part, the authorities

contained in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)

through (v) of this section are retained

by the EPA Administrator and are not

transferred to the State, local, or tribal

agency.

(i) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards in

§§ 63.1003 through 63.1015, under

§ 63.6(g). Where these standards

reference another subpart, the cited

provisions will be delegated according

to the delegation provisions of the

referenced subpart.

(ii) [Reserved]

(iii) Approval of major alternatives to

test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and

(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

(iv) Approval of major alternatives to

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as

defined in § 63.90.

(v) Approval of major alternatives to

recordkeeping and reporting under

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

(2) [Reserved]

Subpart UU—[Amended]

8. Section 63.1019 is amended by

adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as

follows:

§ 63.1019 Applicability.

* * * * *

(f) Implementation and enforcement.

This subpart can be implemented and

enforced by the EPA, or a delegated

authority such as the applicable State,

local, or tribal agency. If the EPA

Administrator has delegated authority to

a State, local, or tribal agency, then that

agency has the authority to implement

and enforce this subpart. Contact the

applicable EPA Regional Office to find

out if this subpart is delegated to a State,

local, or tribal agency.

(g) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority of this subpart to

a State, local, or tribal agency under

subpart E of this part, the authorities

contained in paragraphs (g)(1) through

(5) of this section are retained by the

EPA Administrator and are not

transferred to the State, local, or tribal

agency.

(1) Approval of alternatives to the

non-opacity emissions standards in

§§ 63.1022 through 62.1034, under

§ 63.6(g), and the standards for quality

improvement programs in § 63.1035.

Where these standards reference another

subpart, the cited provisions will be

delegated according to the delegation

provisions of the referenced subpart.

(2) [Reserved]

(3) Approval of major alternatives to

test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and

(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

(4) Approval of major alternatives to

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as

defined in § 63.90.

(5) Approval of major alternatives to

recordkeeping and reporting under

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

Subpart WW—[Amended]

9. Section 63.1067 is added to read as

follows:

§ 63.1067 Implementation and

enforcement.

(a) This subpart can be implemented

and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated

authority such as the applicable State,

local, or tribal agency. If the EPA

Administrator has delegated authority to

a State, local, or tribal agency, then that

agency has the authority to implement

and enforce this subpart. Contact the

applicable EPA Regional Office to find

out if this subpart is delegated to a State,

local, or tribal agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority of this subpart to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76447

a State, local, or tribal agency under

subpart E of this part, the authorities

contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(5) of this section are retained by the

EPA Administrator and are not

transferred to the State, local, or tribal

agency.

(1) Approval of alternatives to the

non-opacity emissions standards in

§§ 63.1062 and 63.1063(a) and (b) for

alternative means of emission

limitation, under § 63.6(g).

(2) [Reserved]

(3) Approval of major alternatives to

test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and

(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

(4) Approval of major alternatives to

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as

defined in § 63.90.

(5) Approval of major alternatives to

recordkeeping and reporting under

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

Subpart YY—[Amended]

10. Section 63.1100 is amended by:

a. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (a);

b. Adding four entries in alphabetical

order and two footnotes to Table 1;

c. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(ii), (g)(2),

and (g)(5) and

d. Adding paragraph (g)(6).

The revisions and additions read as

follows:

§ 63.1100 Applicability.

(a) General. This subpart applies to

source categories and affected sources

specified in § 63.1103(a) through (h).

***

* * * * *

TABLE 1 TO § 63.1100(A).—SOURCE CATEGORY MACT a APPLICABILITY

Source category Storage

vessels

Process

vents

Transfer

racks

Equipment

leaks

Wastewater

streams

Other Source category MACT

requirements

*******

Carbon Black Production ........ No ............ Yes .......... No ............ No ............ No ............ No ............ § 63.1103(f)

Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing.Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes .......... No ............ § 63.1103(g)

*******

Ethylene Production ................ Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes c ........ § 63.1103(e)

*******

Spandex Production ................ Yes .......... Yes .......... No ............ No ............ No ............ Yes d ........ § 63.1103(h)

*******

c Heat exchange systems as defined in § 63.1103(e)(2).

dFiber spinning lines.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) After the compliance dates

specified in § 63.1102 for an affected

source subject to this subpart, a storage

vessel that is part of an existing source

that must be controlled according to the

storage vessel requirements of this

subpart, and that must be controlled

according to the storage vessel

requirements of subpart Ka or Kb of 40

CFR part 60 is required to comply only

with the storage vessel requirements of

this subpart.

(2) Overlap of subpart YY with other

regulations for process vents. (i) After

the compliance dates specified in

§ 63.1102 for an affected source subject

to this subpart, a process vent that is

part of an existing source that must be

controlled according to the process vent

requirements of this subpart, and that

must be controlled according to the

process vent requirements of subpart G

(the HON) of this part is in compliance

with this subpart if it complies with

either the process vent requirements of

this subpart or subpart G of this part,

and the owner or operator has notified

the Administrator in the Notification of

Compliance Status report required by

§ 63.1110(a)(4).

(ii) After the compliance dates

specified in § 63.1102 for an affected

source subject to this subpart, a process

vent that is part of an existing source

that must be controlled according to the

process vent requirements of this

subpart, and that must be controlled

according to the process vent

requirements of subpart RRR or NNN of

40 CFR part 60 is required to comply

only with the process vent requirements

of this subpart.

* * * * *

(5) Overlap of subpart YY with other

regulations for wastewater for source

categories other than ethylene

production. (i) After the compliance

dates specified in § 63.1102 for an

affected source subject to this subpart, a

wastewater stream that is subject to the

wastewater requirements of this subpart

and the wastewater requirements of

subparts F and G of this part (the HON)

shall be deemed to be in compliance

with the requirements of this subpart if

it complies with either set of

requirements. In any instance where a

source subject to this subpart is

collocated with a Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry

(SOCMI) source, and a single

wastewater treatment facility treats both

Group 1 wastewaters and wastewater

residuals from the source subject to this

subpart and wastewaters from the

SOCMI source, a certification by the

treatment facility that they will manage

and treat the waste in conformity with

the specific control requirements set

forth in §§ 63.133 through 63.147 will

also be deemed sufficient to satisfy the

certification requirements for

wastewater treatment under this

subpart. This paragraph does not apply

to the ethylene production source

category.

(ii) After the compliance dates

specified in § 63.1102 for an affected

source subject to this subpart, a

wastewater stream that is subject to

control requirements in the Benzene

Waste Operations NESHAP (subpart FF

of 40 CFR part 61) and this subpart is

required to comply with both rules. This

paragraph (g)(5)(ii) does not apply to the

ethylene production source category.

(6) Overlap of subpart YY with other

regulations for waste for the ethylene

production source category.

(i) After the compliance date specified

in § 63.1102, a waste stream that is

conveyed, stored, or treated in a

76448 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

wastewater stream management unit,

waste management unit, or wastewater

treatment system that receives streams

subject to both the control requirements

of § 63.1103(e)(2) for ethylene

production sources and the provisions

of §§ 63.133 through 63.147 shall

comply as specified in paragraphs

(g)(6)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.

Compliance with the provisions of this

paragraph (g)(6)(i) shall constitute

compliance with the requirements of

this subpart for that waste stream.

(A) Comply with the provisions in

§§ 63.133 through 63.137 and 63.140 for

all equipment used in the storage and

conveyance of the waste stream.

(B) Comply with the provisions in

§§ 63.1103(e), 63.138, and 63.139 for the

treatment and control of the waste

stream.

(C) Comply with the provisions in

§§ 63.143 through 63.148 for monitoring

and inspections of equipment and for

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements. The owner or operator is

not required to comply with the

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements associated with

the treatment and control requirements

in §§ 61.355 through 61.357.

(ii) After the compliance date

specified in § 63.1102, compliance with

§ 63.1103(e) shall constitute compliance

with the Benzene Waste Operations

NESHAP (subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61)

for waste streams that are subject to both

the control requirements of

§ 63.1103(e)(2) for ethylene production

sources and the control requirements of

40 CFR part 61, subpart FF.

11. Section 63.1101 is amended by:

a. Adding a sentence at the end of the

introductory text;

b. Adding a sentence to the end of the

definition of ‘‘process vent;’’

c. Revising the definitions of

‘‘shutdown’’ and ‘‘total organic

compounds.’’

The revisions read as follows:

§ 63.1101 Definitions.

* * * The definitions in this section

do not apply to waste requirements for

ethylene production sources.

* * * * *

Process vent * * * This definition

does not apply to ethylene production

sources. Ethylene manufacturing

process vents are defined in

§ 63.1103(e)(2).

* * * * *

Shutdown means the cessation of

operation of a regulated source and

equipment required or used to comply

with this subpart, or the emptying and

degassing of a storage vessel. For the

purposes of this subpart, shutdown

includes, but is not limited to, periodic

maintenance, replacement of

equipment, or repair. Shutdown does

not include the routine rinsing or

washing of equipment in batch

operation between batches. Shutdown

includes the decoking of ethylene

manufacturing process unit furnaces.

* * * * *

Total organic compounds or (TOC)

means the total gaseous organic

compounds (minus methane and

ethane) in a vent stream, with the

concentrations expressed on a carbon

basis.

* * * * *

12. Section 63.1102 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 63.1102 Compliance Schedule.

(a) General requirements. Affected

sources, as defined in § 63.1103(a)(1)(i)

for acetyl resins production;

§ 63.1103(b)(1)(i) for acrylic and

monacrylic fiber production;

§ 63.1103(c)(1)(i) for hydrogen fluoride

production; § 63.1103(d)(1)(i) for

polycarbonate production;

§ 63.1103(e)(1)(i) for ethylene

production; § 63.1103(f)(1)(i) for carbon

black production; § 63.1103(g)(1)(i) for

cyanide chemicals manufacturing; or

§ 63.1103(h)(1)(i) for spandex

production shall comply with the

appropriate provisions of this subpart

and the subparts referenced by this

subpart according to the schedule in

paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as

appropriate. Proposal and effective

dates are specified in Table 1 to this

section.

(1) Compliance dates for new and

reconstructed sources. (i) The owner or

operator of a new or reconstructed

affected source that commences

construction or reconstruction after the

proposal date, and that has an initial

startup before the effective date of

standards for an affected source, shall

comply with this subpart no later than

the applicable effective date in Table 1

to this section.

(ii) The owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed affected source that has

an initial startup after the applicable

effective date in Table 1 to § 63.1102

shall comply with this subpart upon

startup of the source.

(iii) The owner or operator of an

affected source that commences

construction or reconstruction after the

proposal date, but before the effective

date in Table 1 to § 63.1102, shall

comply with this subpart no later than

the date 3 years after the effective date

if the conditions in paragraphs

(a)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section are

met.

(A) The promulgated standards are

more stringent than the proposed

standards.

(B) The owner or operator complies

with this subpart as proposed during the

3-year period immediately after the

effective date of standards for the

affected source.

(2) Compliance dates for existing

sources. (i) The owner or operator of an

existing affected source shall comply

with the requirements of this subpart

within 3 years after the effective date of

standards for the affected source.

(ii) The owner or operator of an area

source that increases its emissions of (or

its potential to emit) HAP such that the

source becomes a major source shall be

subject to the relevant standards for

existing sources under this subpart.

Such sources shall comply with the

relevant standards within 3 years of

becoming a major source.

TABLE 1 TO § 63.1102.—SOURCE CATEGORY PROPOSAL AND EFFECTIVE DATES

Source category Proposal date Effective date

1. Acetal Resins Production .............................. October 14, 1998 ............................................. June 29, 1999.

2. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production ..... October 14, 1998 ............................................. June 29, 1999.

3. Hydrogen Fluoride Production ...................... October 14, 1998 ............................................. June 29, 1999.

4. Polycarbonate Production ............................. October 14, 1998 ............................................. June 29, 1999.

5. Ethylene Production ...................................... December 6, 2000 ............................................ [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL

SUBPART IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

6. Carbon Black Production .............................. December 6, 2000 ............................................ [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL

SUBPART IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

7. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing ............... December 6, 2000 ............................................ [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL

SUBPART IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76449

TABLE 1 TO § 63.1102.—SOURCE CATEGORY PROPOSAL AND EFFECTIVE DATES—Continued

Source category Proposal date Effective date

8. Spandex Production ...................................... December 6, 2000 ............................................ [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL

SUBPART IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

* * * * *

13. Section 63.1103 is amended by

adding paragraphs (e) through (h), and

adding Tables 7 through 10 as follows:

§ 63.1103 Source category-specific

applicability, definitions, and requirements.

* * * * *

(e) Ethylene production applicability,

definitions, and requirements—(1)

Applicability.—(i) Affected source. For

the ethylene production (as defined in

paragraph (e)(2) of this section) source

category, the affected source shall

comprise all emission points listed in

paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) through (F) of

this section that are associated with an

ethylene manufacturing process unit

located at a major source, as defined in

section 112(a) of the Act.

(A) All storage vessels (as defined in

§ 63.1101) that store liquids containing

organic HAP.

(B) All process vents (as defined in

paragraph (e)(2) of this section) from

continuous unit operations.

(C) All transfer racks (as defined in

paragraph (e)(2) of this section) that load

HAP-containing material.

(D) Equipment (as defined in

§ 63.1101) that contains or contacts

organic HAP.

(E) All waste streams (as defined in

paragraph (e)(2) of this section)

associated with the ethylene production

process.

(F) All heat exchange systems (as

defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this

section) associated with the ethylene

production process.

(ii) Exceptions. The emission points

listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)(A) through

(I) of this section are in the ethylene

production source category but are not

subject to the requirements of paragraph

(e)(3) of this section.

(A) Equipment that is located within

an ethylene manufacturing process unit

that is subject to this subpart but does

not contain organic HAP.

(B) Stormwater from segregated

sewers.

(C) Water from fire-fighting and

deluge systems in segregated sewers.

(D) Spills.

(E) Water from safety showers.

(F) Water from testing of deluge

systems.

(G) Vessels storing organic liquids

that contain organic HAP as impurities.

(H) Transfer racks, loading arms, or

loading hoses that only transfer liquids

containing organic HAP as impurities.

(I) Transfer racks, loading arms, or

loading hoses that vapor balance during

all transfer operations.

(iii) Compliance schedule. The

compliance schedule for affected

sources as defined in paragraph (e)(1)(i)

of this section is specified in § 63.1102.

(2) Definitions. Ethylene

manufacturing process vent means a gas

stream containing greater than 0.005

weight-percent and 20 parts per million

by volume HAP that is continuously

discharged during operation of an

ethylene manufacturing process unit, as

defined in this section. Ethylene

manufacturing process vents are gas

streams that are discharged to the

atmosphere (or the point of entry into a

control device, if any) either directly or

after passing through one or more

recovery devices. Ethylene

manufacturing process vents do not

include relief valve discharges; gaseous

streams routed to a fuel gas system;

leaks from equipment regulated under

this subpart; episodic or nonroutine

releases such as those associated with

startup, shutdown, and malfunction;

and in situ sampling systems (online

analyzers).

Ethylene manufacturing process unit

means a process unit that is specifically

utilized for the production of ethylene/

propylene, including all separation and

purification processes.

Ethylene production means the

process by which ethylene/propylene is

produced as a product or an

intermediate by either a pyrolysis

process (hydrocarbons subjected to high

temperatures in the presence of steam)

or separation from a petroleum refining

stream. The ethylene production

process includes the separation of

ethylene/propylene from associated

streams such as products made from

compounds composed of four carbon

atoms (C4), pyrolysis gasoline, and

pyrolysis fuel oil. The ethylene

production process does not include the

manufacture of synthetic organic

chemicals such as the production of

butadiene from the C4 stream and

aromatics from pyrolysis gasoline.

Heat exchange system means any

cooling tower system or once-through

cooling water system (e.g., river or pond

water). A heat exchange system can

include an entire recirculating or oncethrough cooling system.

Transfer rack means the collection of

loading arms and loading hoses, at a

single loading rack, that are associated

with an ethylene manufacturing process

unit subject to this subpart and are used

to fill tank trucks and/or railcars with

organic HAP. Transfer rack includes the

associated pumps, meters, shutoff

valves, relief valves, and other piping

and valves. Transfer rack does not

include racks, arms, or hoses that

contain organic HAP only as impurities;

or racks, arms, or hoses that vapor

balance during all loading operations.

Waste means any material resulting

from industrial, commercial, mining, or

agricultural operations, or from

community activities, that is discarded

or is being accumulated, stored, or

physically, chemically, thermally, or

biologically treated prior to being

discarded, recycled, or discharged.

Waste stream means the waste

generated by a particular process unit,

product tank, or waste management

unit. The characteristics of the waste

stream (e.g., flow rate, HAP

concentration, water content) are

determined at the point of waste

generation. Examples of a waste stream

include process wastewater, product

tank drawdown, sludge and slop oil

removed from waste management units,

and landfill leachate.

(3) Requirements. Table 7 to this

section specifies the ethylene

production source category

requirements for new and existing

sources. The owner or operator must

control organic HAP emissions from

each affected source emission point by

meeting the applicable requirements

specified in Table 7 to § 63.1103. An

owner or operator must perform the

applicability assessment procedures and

methods for process vents specified in

§ 63.1104, excluding paragraphs (d), (g),

(h), (i), (j), (l)(1), and (n). An owner or

operator must perform the applicability

assessment procedures and methods for

equipment leaks specified in § 63.1107.

General compliance, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements are specified in

§§ 63.1108 through 63.1112.

Minimization of emissions from startup,

shutdown, and malfunctions must be

addressed in the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan required by § 63.1111;

the plan must also establish reporting

76450 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

and recordkeeping of such events.

Procedures for approval of alternate

means of emission limitations are

specified in § 63.1113.

TABLE 7 TO § 63.1103.—WHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE AN ETHYLENE PRODUCTION EXISTING OR

NEW AFFECTED SOURCE?

If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *

1. A storage vessel (as defined in § 63.1101)

that stores liquid containing organic HAP.

The maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP is ≥3.4 kilopascals but <76.6

kilopascals and

the capacity of the vessel is ≥4 cubic meters

but <95 cubic meters.

a. Fill the vessel through a submerged pipe;

or

b. Comply with the requirements for storage

vessels with capacities ≥95 cubic meters.

2. A storage vessel (as defined in § 63.1101)

that stores liquid containing organic HAP.

The maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP is ≥3.4 kilopascals but <76.6

kilopascals; and

the capacity of the vessel is ≥95 cubic meters

a. Comply with the requirements of subpart

WW of this part; or

b. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by

98 weight-percent by venting emissions

through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of subpart SS of this part, as

specified in § 63.982(a)(1).

3. A storage vessel (as defined in § 63.1101)

that stores liquid containing organic HAP.

The maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP is ≥76.6 kilopascals.Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 98

weight-percent by venting emissions

through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of subpart SS of this part, as

specified in § 63.982(a)(1).

4. A process vent (as defined in paragraph

(e)(2) of this section) from continuous unit

operations.

The vent stream has an average flow rate ≥

0.011 scmm; and

the vent stream has a total organic HAP concentration ≥50 parts per million by volume.

Reduce emissions of organic HAP by 98

weight-percent; or reduce organic HAP or

TOC to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume; whichever is less stringent,

by venting emissions through a closed vent

system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of subpart

SS of this part, as specified in

§ 63.982(a)(2).

5. A transfer rack (as defined in paragraph

(e)(2) of this section).

Materials loaded have a true vapor pressure

of total organic HAP ≥3.4 kilopascals; and

≥ 76 cubic meters per day (averaged over any

consecutive 30-day period) of HAP-containing material is loaded.

a. Reduce emissions of organic HAP by 98

weight-percent; or reduce organic HAP or

TOC to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume; whichever is less stringent,

by venting emissions through a closed vent

system to any combination of control devices as specified in § 63.1105; or

process piping designed to collect the HAPcontaining vapors displaced from tank

trucks or railcars during loading and to

route it to a process, a fuel gas system, or

a vapor balance system, as specified in

§ 63.1105.

6. Equipment (as defined in § 63.1101) that

contains or contacts organic HAP.

The equipment contains or contacts ≥5

weight-percent organic HAP; and

the equipment is in service ≥300 hours per

year; and

the equipment is not in vacuum service ..........

Comply with the requirements of subpart UU

of this part.

7. Processes that generate process wastewater

or maintenance wastewater (as defined in

paragraph (e)(2) of this section).

The wastewater contains any of the following

HAP: Benzene, cumene, ethyl benzene,

hexane, methyl ethyl ketone, naphthalene,

phenol, styrene, toluene, o-xylene, m-xylene, p-xylene, or 1,3-butadiene.

Comply with the waste requirements of subpart XX of this part. For ethylene manufacturing process unit waste stream requirements, words have the meanings specified

in subpart XX.

8. A heat exchange system (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section)............................................................................ Comply with the heat exchange system requirements of subpart XX of this part.

(f) Carbon black production

applicability, definitions, and

requirements—(1) Applicability—(i)

Affected source. For the carbon black

production source category (as defined

in paragraph (f)(2) of this section), the

affected source shall include each

carbon black production process unit

located at a major source, as defined in

section 112(a) of the Act. The affected

source shall also include all waste

management units, maintenance

wastewater, and equipment components

that contain or contact HAP that are

associated with the carbon black

production process unit.

(ii) Compliance schedule. The

compliance schedule for the carbon

black production affected source, as

defined in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this

section, is specified in § 63.1102.

(2) Definitions.

Carbon black production means the

production of carbon black by either the

furnace, thermal, acetylene, or

lampblack processes.

Carbon black production process unit

means the equipment assembled and

connected by hard-piping or duct work

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76451

to process raw materials to manufacture,

store, and transport a carbon black

product. For the purposes of this

subpart, a carbon black production

process unit includes reactors and

associated operations; associated

recovery devices; and any feed,

intermediate and product storage

vessels, product transfer racks, and

connected ducts and piping. A carbon

black production process unit includes

pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure

relief devices, sampling connection

systems, open-ended valves or lines,

valves, connectors, instrumentation

systems, and control devices or systems.

Dryer means a rotary-kiln dryer that is

heated externally and is used to dry wet

pellets in the wet pelletization process.

Main unit filter means the filter that

separates the carbon black from the

tailgas.

Miscellaneous process vents means all

process vents associated with a carbon

black production process unit other

than the main unit filter, process filter,

purge filter, and dryer process vents.

Process filter means the filter that

separates the carbon black from the

conveying air.

Purge filter means the filter that

separates the carbon black from the

dryer exhaust.

(3) Requirements. Table 8 of this

section specifies the carbon black

production standards for existing and

new sources. Applicability assessment

procedures and methods are specified in

§ 63.1104. An owner or operator of an

affected source is not required to

perform applicability tests, or other

applicability assessment procedures if

they opt to comply with the most

stringent requirements for an applicable

emission point pursuant to this subpart.

General compliance, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements are specified in

§§ 63.1108 through 63.1112. Procedures

for approval of alternative means of

emission limitations are specified in

§ 63.1113.

TABLE 8 TO § 63.1103.—WHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE A CARBON BLACK PRODUCTION EXISTING

OR NEW AFFECTED SOURCE?

If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *

A main unit filter process vent ........................... The HAP concentration of the emission

stream is equal to or greater than 260 parts

per million by volume a.

a. Reduce emissions of total HAP by using a

flare meeting the requirements of subpart

SS of this part; or

b. Reduce emissions of total HAP by 98

weight-percent or to a concentration of 20

parts per million by volume, whichever is

less stringent, by venting emissions through

a closed vent system to any combination of

control devices meeting the requirements of

subpart SS of this part, as specified in

§ 63.982(a)(2).

aThe weight-percent organic HAP is determined according to the procedures specified in § 63.1104(e).

(g) Cyanide chemicals manufacturing

applicability, definitions, and

requirements—(1) Applicability—(i)

Affected source. For the cyanide

chemicals manufacturing source

category, the affected source shall

include each cyanide chemicals

manufacturing process unit located at a

major source, as defined in section

112(a) of the Act. The affected source

shall also include all waste management

units, maintenance wastewater, and

equipment (as defined in § 63.1101) that

contain or contact cyanide chemicals

that are associated with the cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process unit.

(ii) Compliance schedule. The

compliance schedule for the affected

source, as defined in paragraph (f)(1)(i)

of this section, is specified in § 63.1102.

(2) Definitions.

Andrussow process unit means a

process unit that produces hydrogen

cyanide by reacting methane and

ammonia in the presence of oxygen over

a platinum/rhodium catalyst. An

Andrussow process unit begins at the

point at which the raw materials are

stored and ends at the point at which

refined hydrogen cyanide is utilized as

a raw material in a downstream process

or is shipped offsite. If raw hydrogen

cyanide is reacted with sodium

hydroxide to form sodium cyanide,

prior to the refining process, the unit

operation where sodium cyanide is

formed is considered to be part of the

Andrussow process unit.

Blausaure Methane Anlage (BMA)

process unit means a process unit that

produces hydrogen cyanide by reacting

methane and ammonia over a platinum

catalyst. A BMA process unit begins at

the point at which raw materials are

stored and ends at the point at which

refined hydrogen cyanide is used as a

raw material in a downstream process or

is shipped offsite. If raw hydrogen

cyanide is reacted with sodium

hydroxide to form sodium cyanide,

prior to the refining process, the unit

operation where sodium cyanide is

formed is considered to be part of the

BMA process unit.

Byproduct means a chemical that is

produced coincidentally during the

production of another chemical.

Cyanide chemicals manufacturing

process unit or CCMPU means the

equipment assembled and connected by

hard-piping or duct work to process raw

materials to manufacture, store, and

transport a cyanide chemicals product.

A cyanide chemicals manufacturing

process unit may be any one of the

following: an Andrussow process unit, a

BMA process unit, a sodium cyanide

process unit, or a Sohio hydrogen

cyanide process unit. For the purpose of

this subpart, a cyanide chemicals

manufacturing process unit includes

reactors and associated unit operations;

associated recovery devices; and any

feed, intermediate and product storage

vessels, product transfer racks, and

connected ducts and piping. A cyanide

chemicals manufacturing process unit

includes pumps, compressors, agitators,

pressure relief devices, sampling

connection systems, open-ended valves

or lines, valves, connectors,

instrumentation systems, and control

devices or systems.

Cyanide chemicals product means

either hydrogen cyanide or sodium

cyanide.

Dry-end process vent means a process

vent originating from the drum filter or

any other unit operation in the dry end

of a sodium cyanide manufacturing

process unit. For the purposes of this

subpart, the dry end of the sodium

cyanide process unit begins in the unit

76452 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

operation where water is removed from

the sodium cyanide, usually in the

drum filter, and ends when the sodium

cyanide is used as a raw material in a

downstream process, or is shipped

offsite.

Raw hydrogen cyanide means

hydrogen cyanide that has not been

through the refining process. Raw

hydrogen cyanide usually has a

hydrogen cyanide concentration less

than 10 percent.

Refined hydrogen cyanide means

hydrogen cyanide that has been through

the refining process. Refined hydrogen

cyanide usually has a hydrogen cyanide

concentration greater than 99 percent.

Refining process means the collection

of equipment in a cyanide chemicals

manufacturing processing unit used to

concentrate raw hydrogen cyanide from

a concentration less than 10 percent to

refined hydrogen cyanide at a

concentration greater than 99 percent.

Sodium cyanide process unit means a

process unit that produces sodium

cyanide by reacting hydrogen cyanide

and sodium hydroxide via the

neutralization, or wet, process. A

sodium cyanide process unit begins at

the unit operation where refined

hydrogen cyanide is reacted with

sodium hydroxide and ends at the point

the solid sodium cyanide product is

shipped offsite or used as a raw material

in a downstream process. If raw

hydrogen cyanide is reacted with

sodium hydroxide to form sodium

cyanide prior to the refining process, the

unit operation where sodium cyanide is

formed is not considered to be part of

the sodium cyanide process unit. For

this type of process, the sodium cyanide

process unit begins at the point that the

aqueous sodium cyanide stream leaves

the unit operation where the sodium

cyanide is formed.

Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit

means a process unit that produces

hydrogen cyanide as a byproduct of the

acrylonitrile production process when

acrylonitrile is manufactured using the

Sohio process. A Sohio hydrogen

cyanide process unit begins at the point

the hydrogen cyanide leaves the unit

operation where the hydrogen cyanide

is separated from the acrylonitrile

(usually referred to as the light ends

column). The Sohio hydrogen cyanide

process unit ends at the point refined

hydrogen cyanide is used as a raw

material in a downstream process or is

shipped offsite. If raw hydrogen cyanide

is reacted with sodium hydroxide to

form sodium cyanide, prior to the

refining process, the unit operation

where sodium cyanide is formed is

considered to be part of the Sohio

hydrogen cyanide process unit.

Wet-end process vent means a process

vent originating from the reactor,

crystallizer, or any other unit operation

in the wet end of the sodium cyanide

process unit. For the purposes of this

subpart, the wet end of the sodium

cyanide process unit begins at the point

at which the raw materials are stored

and ends just prior to the unit operation

where water is removed from the

sodium cyanide, usually in the drum

filter.

(3) Requirements. Table 9 of this

section specifies the cyanide chemicals

manufacturing standards applicable to

existing and new sources. Applicability

assessment procedures and methods are

specified in § 63.1104. An owner or

operator of an affected source is not

required to perform applicability tests,

or other applicability assessment

procedures if they opt to comply with

the most stringent requirements for an

applicable emission point pursuant to

this subpart. General compliance,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements are specified in §§ 63.1108

through 63.1112. Procedures for

approval of alternative means of

emission limitations are specified in

§ 63.1113.

(4) Determination of overall HAP

emissions reductions for a process unit.

(i) The owner or operator shall

determine the overall HAP emissions

reductions for process vents in a process

unit using Equation 1 of this section.

The overall organic HAP emissions

reductions shall be determined for all

process vents in the process unit.

RED

E R

E E

CCMPU

unc i

i

i

n

unc i unc j

j

m

i

n =

( )







( ) + ( )

























∗ =

= =

∑

∑ ∑

,

, ,

(

100

100 1

1 1

Eq. 1)

Where:

REDCCMPU = Overall HAP emission

reduction for the group of process

vents in the CCMPU, percent.

Eunc,i = Uncontrolled HAP emissions

from process vent i that is

controlled by using a combustion,

recovery, or recapture device, kg/hr.

n = Number of process vents in the

process unit that are controlled by

using a combustion, recovery, or

recapture device.

Ri = Control efficiency of the

combustion, recovery, or recapture

device used to control HAP

emissions from vent i, determined

in accordance with paragraph

(g)(4)(ii) of this section.

Eunc,j = Uncontrolled HAP emissions

from process vent j that is not

controlled by using a combustion,

recovery, or recapture device, kg/hr.

m = Number of process vents in the

process unit that are not controlled

by using a combustion, recovery, or

recapture device.

(ii) The control efficiency, Ri, shall be

assigned as specified in paragraph

(g)(4)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.

(A) If the process vent is controlled

using a flare in accordance with the

provisions of § 63.987, or a combustion

device in accordance with the

provisions of § 63.988(b)(2), for which a

performance test has not been

conducted, the control efficiency shall

be assumed to be 98 percent.

(B) If the process vent is controlled

using a combustion, recovery, or

recapture device for which a

performance test has been conducted in

accordance with the provisions of

§ 63.997, the control efficiency shall be

the efficiency determined from the

performance test.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76453

TABLE 9 TO § 63.1103.—WHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE A CYANIDE CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING

EXISTING OR NEW AFFECTED SOURCE?

If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *

1. A storage vessel ............................................ The storage vessel contains refined hydrogen

cyanide.

a. Reduce emissions of hydrogen cyanide by

using a flare meeting the requirements of

§ 63.982(b); or

b. Reduce emissions of hydrogen cyanide by

98 weight-percent by venting emissions

through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of § 63.982(c)(1) or (d).

2. One or more process vents from continuous

unit operations in an Andrussow or BMA

process unit.

........................................................................... During all periods, except periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction, either:

a. Reduce overall emissions of total HAP from

the collection of process vents from continuous unit operations in the process unit by

99 weight-percent in accordance with paragraph (g)(4) of this section. Any control device used to reduce emissions from one or

more process vents from continuous unit

operations in the process unit must meet

the applicable requirements of

§ 63.982(a)(2); or

b. Reduce emissions of total HAP from each

process vent from a continuous unit operation in the process unit by 99 weight-percent or a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, by venting emissions

through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of § 63.982(c)(2) or (d).

3. One or more process vents from continuous

unit operations in an Andrussow or BMA

process unit.

........................................................................... During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, either:

a. Reduce emissions of total HAP from each

process vent from a continuous unit operation in the process unit by using a flare

meeting the requirements of § 63.982(b); or

b. Reduce emissions of total HAP from each

process vent from a continuous unit operation in the process unit by 98 weight-percent or a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, by venting emissions

through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of § 63.982(c)(2) or (d).

4. One or more process vents from continuous

unit operations in a Sohio hydrogen cyanide

process unit.

........................................................................... a. Reduce overall emissions of hydrogen cyanide from the collection of process vents

from continuous unit operations in the process unit by 98 weight-percent in accordance

with paragraph (g)(4) of this section. Any

control device used to reduce emissions

from one or more process vents from continuous unit operations in the process unit

must meet the applicable requirements

specified in § 63.982(a)(2); or

b. Reduce emissions of hydrogen cyanide

from each process vent from a continuous

unit operation in the process unit by using a

flare meeting the requirements of

§ 63.982(b); or

c. Reduce emissions of hydrogen cyanide

from each process vent from a continuous

unit operation in the process unit by 98

weight-percent or a concentration of 20

parts per million by volume, by venting

emissions through a closed vent system to

any combination of control devices meeting

the requirements of § 63.982(c)(2) or (d).

76454 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 9 TO § 63.1103.—WHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE A CYANIDE CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING

EXISTING OR NEW AFFECTED SOURCE?—Continued

If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *

5. One or more wet-end process vents, as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, in a

sodium cyanide process unit.

........................................................................... a. Reduce overall emissions of total HAP from

the collection of process vents from continuous unit operations in the process unit by

98 weight-percent in accordance with paragraph (g)(4) of this section. Any control device used to reduce emissions from one or

more process vents from continuous unit

operations in the process unit must meet

the applicable requirements § 63.982(a)(2);

or

b. Reduce emissions of total HAP from each

wet-end process vent in the process unit by

using a flare meeting the requirements of

§ 63.982(b); or

c. Reduce emissions of total HAP from each

wet-end process vent in the process unit by

98 weight-percent or a concentration of 20

parts per million by volume, by venting

emissions through a closed vent system to

any combination of control devices meeting

the requirements of § 63.982(c)(2) or (d).

6. One or more dry-end process vents, as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, in a

sodium cyanide process unit.

........................................................................... a. Reduce overall emissions of sodium cyanide from the collection of process vents

from continuous unit operations in the process unit by 98 weight-percent in accordance

with paragraph (g)(4) of this section. Any

control device used to reduce emissions

from one or more process vents from continuous unit operations in the process unit

must meet the applicable requirements of

§ 63.982(a)(2); or

b. Reduce emissions of sodium cyanide from

each dry-end process vent in the process

unit by 98 weight-percent by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any

combination of control devices meeting the

requirements of § 63.982(c)(2) or (d).

7. A transfer rack ............................................... The transfer rack is used to load refined hydrogen cyanide into tank trucks and/or rail

cars.

a. Reduce emissions of hydrogen cyanide by

using a flare meeting the requirements of

§ 63.982(b); or

b. Reduce emissions of hydrogen cyanide by

98 weight-percent or a concentration of 20

parts per million by volume, whichever is

less stringent, by venting emissions through

a closed vent system to any combination of

control devices meeting the requirements

specified in § 63.982(c)(1), (c)(2), or (d).

8. A new cyanide chemicals manufacturing

process unit that generates process wastewater.

The process wastewater is from HCN purification, ammonia purification, or flare blowdown.Achieve a combined removal and control of

HAP from the wastewater of 93 weight-percent.

9. A cyanide chemicals manufacturing process

unit that generates maintenance wastewater.

The maintenance wastewater contains hydrogen cyanide or acetonitrile.Comply with the requirements of § 63.1106(b).

10. An item of equipment listed in

§ 63.1106(c)(1).

The item of equipment meets the criteria

specified in § 63.1106(c)(1) through (3) and

either (c)(4)(i) or (ii)..

Comply with the requirements in Table 35 of

subpart G of this part.

11. Equipment, as defined under § 63.1101 ...... The equipment contains or contacts hydrogen

cyanide and operates equal to or greater

than 300 hours per year.

Comply with either subpart TT or UU of this

part, with the exception that open-ended

lines that contain or contact hydrogen cyanide are not to be capped.

(h) Spandex production applicability,

definitions, and requirements—(1)

Applicability—(i) Affected source. For

the spandex production (as defined in

paragraph (h)(2) of this section) source

category, the affected source shall

comprise all emission points listed in

paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of

this section that are associated with a

reaction spinning spandex production

process unit located at a major source,

as defined in section 112(a) of the Act.

(A) All process vents (as defined in

§ 63.1101).

(B) All storage vessels (as defined in

§ 63.1101) that store liquids containing

organic HAP.

(C) All spandex fiber spinning lines

using a spinning solution having

organic HAP.

(ii) Exceptions. The emission points

listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) and (B)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76455

of this section are in the spandex

production source category but are not

subject to the requirements of paragraph

(h)(3) of this section.

(A) Equipment that is located within

a spandex production process unit that

is subject to this subpart but does not

contain organic HAP.

(B) Vessels storing organic liquids that

contain organic HAP as impurities.

(iii) Compliance schedule. The

compliance schedule for affected

sources, as defined in paragraph (h)(1)(i)

of this section, is specified in paragraph

(b) of § 63.1102.

(2) Definitions.

Spandex or Spandex fiber means a

manufactured synthetic fiber in which

the fiber-forming substance is a longchain polymer comprised of at least 85

percent by mass of a segmented

polyurethane.

Spandex production means the

production of synthetic spandex fibers.

Spandex production process unit

means a process unit that is specifically

used for the production of synthetic

spandex fibers.

Fiber spinning line means the group

of equipment and process vents

associated with spandex fiber spinning

operations. The fiber spinning line

includes the blending and dissolving

tanks, spinning solution filters, spinning

units, spin bath tanks, and the

equipment used downstream of the spin

bath to wash, draw, or dry on the wet

belt the spun fiber.

(3) Requirements. Table 10 to this

section specifies the spandex

production source category

requirements for new and existing

sources. An owner or operator must

perform the applicability assessment

procedures and methods for process

vents specified in § 63.1104, excluding

paragraphs (b)(1), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j),

(l)(1), and (n). General compliance,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements are specified in §§ 63.1108

through 63.1112. Minimization of

emissions from startup, shutdown, and

malfunctions must be addressed in the

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan required by § 63.1111; the plan

must also establish reporting and

recordkeeping of such events.

Procedures for approval of alternate

means of emission limitations are

specified in § 63.1113.

TABLE 10 TO § 63.1103.—WHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE A SPANDEX PRODUCTION PROCESS

UNIT AT A NEW OR EXISTING SOURCE?

If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *

1. A storage vessel (as defined in § 63.1101)

that stores liquid containing organic HAP.

The maximum true vapor pressure of the organic HAP is ≥ 3.4 kilopascals; and.

The capacity of the vessel is ≥ 47 cubic meters.

a. Comply with the requirements of subpart

WW of this part; or

b. Reduce emissions of organic HAP by 95

weight-percent by venting emissions

through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of subpart SS of this part, as

specified in § 63.982(a)(1).

2. A process vent ............................................... ........................................................................... Reduce emissions of organic HAP by 95

weight-percent; or reduce organic HAP or

TOC to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume; whichever is less stringent,

by venting emissions through a closed vent

system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of subpart

SS of this part, as specified in

§ 63.982(a)(2).

3. A fiber spinning line ....................................... ........................................................................... Operate the fiber spinning line such that emissions are captured and vented through a

closed vent system to a control device that

complies with the requirements of subpart

SS of this part, as specified in

§ 63.982(a)(2). If a control device other than

a flare is used, HAP emissions must be reduced by 95 weight-percent; or total organic

HAP or TOC must be reduced to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume,

whichever is less stringent.

14. Section 63.1104 is amended by:

a. Revising the last sentence of

paragraph (a);

b. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (e);

c. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (f)(1);

d. Revising the last sentence of

paragraph (k) introductory text; and

e. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (m)(2)(i) introductory text.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 63.1104 Process vents from continuous

unit operations: applicability assessment

procedures and methods.

(a) * * * The owner or operator of a

process vent is not required to

determine the criteria specified for a

process vent that is being controlled in

accordance with the applicable weightpercent, TOC concentration, or organic

HAP concentration requirement in

§ 63.1103.

* * * * *

(e) TOC or organic HAP

concentration. The TOC or organic HAP

concentrations, used for TRE index

value calculations in paragraph (j) of

this section, shall be determined based

on paragraph (e)(1) or (k) of this section,

or any other method or data that have

been validated according to the protocol

in Method 301 of appendix A of 40 CFR

part 63. * * *

(f) * * *

(1) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or

2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as

appropriate. * * *

* * * * *

(k) * * * If a process vent flow rate

or process vent organic HAP or TOC

concentration is being determined for

76456 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

comparison with the applicable flow

rate or concentration value presented in

the tables in § 63.1103 to determine

control requirement applicability,

engineering assessment may be used to

determine the flow rate or concentration

for the representative operating

conditions expected to yield the highest

flow rate or concentration.

* * * * *

(m) * * *

(2) Process change.

(i) Whenever a process vent becomes

subject to control requirements under

this subpart as a result of a process

change, the owner or operator shall

submit a report within 60 days after the

performance test or applicability

assessment, whichever is sooner.* * *

* * * * *

15. Section 63.1105 is added to read

as follows:

§ 63.1105 Transfer racks.

(a) Design requirements. The owner or

operator shall equip each transfer rack

with one of the control options listed in

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this

section.

(1) A closed vent system designed to

collect HAP-containing vapors

displaced from tank trucks or railcars

during loading and to route the

collected vapors to a flare. The owner or

operator must meet the requirements of

§ 63.982(a)(3).

(2) A closed vent system designed to

collect HAP-containing vapors

displaced from tank trucks or railcars

during loading and to route the

collected vapors to a control device

other than a flare. The owner or operator

must meet the requirements of

§ 63.982(a)(3).

(3) Process piping designed to collect

the HAP vapors displaced from tank

trucks or railcars during loading and to

route the collected vapors to a process

where the HAP vapors shall

predominantly meet one of, or a

combination of, the ends specified in

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this

section or to a fuel gas system. The

owner or operator must meet the

requirements of § 63.982(a)(3).

(i) Recycled and/or consumed in the

same manner as a material that fulfills

the same function in that process;

(ii) Transformed by chemical reaction

into materials that are not HAP;

(iii) Incorporated into a product; and/

or

(iv) Recovered.

(4) Process piping designed to collect

the HAP vapors displaced from tank

trucks or railcars during loading and to

route the collected vapors to a vapor

balance system. The vapor balance

system must be designed to route the

collected HAP vapors to the storage

vessel from which the liquid being

loaded originated, or to another storage

vessel connected to a common header,

or to compress and route collected HAP

vapors to a process.

(b) Operating requirements. An owner

or operator of a transfer rack shall

operate it in such a manner that

emissions are routed through the

equipment specified in paragraph (a) of

this section.

(c) Control device operation.

Whenever HAP emissions are vented to

a control device used to comply with

the provisions of this subpart, such

control device shall be operating.

(d) Tank trucks and railcars. The

owner or operator shall load HAPcontaining materials only into tank

trucks and railcars that meet the

requirement in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of

this section, and shall maintain the

records specified in paragraph (i) of this

section.

(1) Have a current certification in

accordance with the U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT) pressure test

requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for

tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for

railcars; or

(2) Have been demonstrated to be

vapor-tight within the preceding 12

months as determined by the

procedures in paragraph (h) of this

section. Vapor-tight means that the

pressure in a truck or railcar tank will

not drop more than 750 pascals (0.11

pound per square inch) within 5

minutes after it is pressurized to a

minimum of 4,500 pascals (0.63 pound

per square inch).

(e) Pressure relief device. The owner

or operator of a transfer rack subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall

ensure that no pressure relief device in

the loading equipment of each tank

truck or railcar shall begin to open to

the atmosphere during loading. Pressure

relief devices needed for safety purposes

are not subject to the requirements of

this paragraph.

(f) Compatible system. The owner or

operator of a transfer rack subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall load

HAP-containing materials only to tank

trucks or railcars equipped with a vapor

collection system that is compatible

with the transfer rack’s closed vent

system or process piping.

(g) Loading while systems connected.

The owner or operator of a transfer rack

subject to this subpart shall load HAPcontaining material only to tank trucks

or railcars whose collection systems are

connected to the transfer rack’s closed

vent system or process piping.

(h) Vapor tightness procedures. For

the purposes of demonstrating vapor

tightness to determine compliance with

paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the

procedures and equipment specified in

paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) shall be used.

(1) The pressure test procedures

specified in Method 27 of appendix A

to 40 CFR part 60.

(2) A pressure measurement device

that has a precision of ± 2.5 millimeters

of mercury (0.10 inch) or better and that

is capable of measuring above the

pressure at which the tank truck or

railcar is to be tested for vapor tightness.

(i) Recordkeeping. The owner or

operator of a transfer rack shall record

that the verification of DOT tank

certification or Method 27 of appendix

A to 40 CFR part 60 testing required in

§ 63.84(c) has been performed. Various

methods for the record of verification

can be used such as: A check off on a

log sheet, a list of DOT serial numbers

or Method 27 data, or a position

description for gate security showing

that the security guard will not allow

any trucks on-site that do not have the

appropriate documentation.

* * * * *

16. Subpart YY is proposed to be

amended by adding § 63.1114 to read as

follows:

§ 63.1114 Implementation and

enforcement.

(a) This subpart can be implemented

and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated

authority such as the applicable State,

local, or tribal agency. If the EPA

Administrator has delegated authority to

a State, local, or tribal agency, then that

agency has the authority to implement

and enforce this subpart. Contact the

applicable EPA Regional Office to find

out if this subpart is delegated to a State,

local, or tribal agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority of this subpart to

a State, local, or tribal agency under

section 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the

authorities contained in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (5) of this section are

retained by the EPA Administrator and

are not transferred to the State, local, or

tribal agency.

(1) Approval of alternatives to the

nonopacity emissions standards in

§ 63.1103(a)(3), (b)(3) through (5), (c)(3),

(d)(3), (e)(3), (f)(3), (g)(3) and (4), and

(h)(3) under § 63.6(g). Follow the

requirements in § 63.1113 to request

permission to use an alternative means

of emission limitation. Where these

standards reference another subpart, the

cited provisions will be delegated

according to the delegation provisions

of the referenced subpart.

(2) [Reserved]

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76457

(3) Approval of major alternatives to

test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and

(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

(4) Approval of major alternatives to

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as

defined in § 63.90.

(5) Approval of major alternatives to

recordkeeping and reporting under

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

[FR Doc. 00–29767 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P