16090 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

mutual interests of all the major

stakeholders in the air toxics program.

For many source categories for which

MACT standards are required, State and

local agency personnel have the

expertise, information and desire to

provide technical assistance for the

development of MACT standards.

Industry personnel are also invaluable

sources of technical expertise and data

needed to develop MACT standards. In

addition, environmental groups have a

thorough understanding of the interests

of the public and can assist in the

development of as many MACT

standards as practical.

III. Streamlined MACT Development

Approach

The MACT Partnerships program, as

currently envisioned, involves two

phases for each MACT standard. The

first phase involves development of a

‘‘presumptive MACT’’. A ‘‘presumptive

MACT’’ is not an emission standard; but

it serves as a statement of current

knowledge of maximum available

control technologies and a basis for a

decision on how to develop the

emission standard for the source

category involved. The second phase is

the formal standard development

process, which results in a promulgated

MACT standard for the source category.

In the first phase of the MACT

Partnerships program, the development

of a ‘‘presumptive MACT’’, begins with

two main steps: (1) A meeting between

EPA and State and local agencies,

known as the presumptive MACT

meeting and (2) consultations with

industry, environmental and other

interest groups. In the presumptiveMACT meeting, EPA, and States review

available information to estimate what

MACT would be if only this information

were used in the determination. This

draft presumptive MACT then goes

through a consultation stage where

industry and environmental groups are

invited to comment on the selected

presumptive MACT. After this

consultation, EPA and the State/local

agencies determine a final presumptive

MACT and how best to complete the

development of a standard, with the

normal opportunities for public

comment. This determination of a

presumptive MACT and a decision on

how to complete development of a

standard are the two products of the

first phase.

For the second phase of MACT

Partnerships, EPA envisions the use of

one of three basic regulatory

development paths: Adopt-a-MACT,

share-a-MACT, or a streamlinedtraditional approach. In all cases, EPA

would eventually propose and then

promulgate the MACT standard. The

‘‘Adopt-a-MACT’’ path allows EPA to

enter into an agreement with a State

wherein the State would accept primary

responsibility for data collection and

analysis. Alternatively, a ‘‘share-aMACT’’ path allows states, industry or

both to share with EPA the

responsibility for developing the

underlying data and analysis from

which EPA would determine the MACT

emission limitation. When no suitable

partners can be found, a ‘‘streamlinedtraditional’’ path is the last alternative.

In the ‘‘streamlined-traditional’’ path,

EPA would go through a streamlined

process of the traditional rule

development, with a presumptive

MACT specification as an intermediate

stage. No matter what path is chosen,

almost all standards would go through

phase one, namely, the presumptive

MACT meeting and the second

consultative stage.

The EPA has successfully worked

with States and industry in the

development of presumptive MACT in

two pilot projects. One project

concerned the MACT standard primary

aluminum manufacturing. The States of

Washington and New York worked with

EPA in the development of a

presumptive MACT. In addition, the

Aluminum Manufacturers Association

and its member companies participated.

For the second project, EPA worked

with the States of Wisconsin and

Maryland to develop a presumptive

MACT for bakers yeast manufacturing.

Both EPA and State partners have

worked with the industry to move from

the presumptive MACT to develop a

MACT standard that is scheduled to be

proposed in the fall of 1995.

Currently, EPA is beginning more

than 25 projects within the MACT

Partnerships program. Presumptive

MACT meetings are scheduled over the

next several months. For the

information of the public, EPA has

developed a table of these projects and

has added it to the Technology Transfer

Network bulletin board system (TTN

BBS) See ADDRESSES section above for

information on how to access the TTN

BBS. The list can be found under the

Clean Air Act (Rules/Guidance/Policy)

section, Tittle III: Hazardous Air

Pollutants subsection and then the

Status of Rules/Projects portion of the

TTN BBS.

In summary, the MACT Partnerships

program is one way to pursue new,

assertive ways to develop MACT

standards. MACT Partnerships is

characterized by EPA and State/

localities working together with

industry and environmentalists to fulfill

the mandate to set MACT standards for

sources of hazardous air pollutants.

Given the mutual interest of all the

stakeholders and EPA’s current

‘‘budgetary’’ situation within the air

toxics program, EPA has begun

redefining its role in selected areas of

MACT standard development for many

MACT standards as a coordinator and

facilitator.

IV. Request for Comments

With this notice the EPA is requesting

comments on:

(1) The concept of MACT

Partnerships as an approach for

streamlining the development of MACT

standards,

(2) How to improve the MACT

Partnership approach,

(3) Alternative ways to streamline the

MACT development process, and

(4) Using presumptive MACT as a

starting point for case-by-case MACT

determinations.

V. Administrative Requirement

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

The request for comments detailed in

this notice seeks voluntary responses

and does not affect information

collection burdens.

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

This notice is a request for comments

and, therefore, was not reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866. It was not

considered significant.

Dated: March 14, 1995.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 95–7492 Filed 3–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL–5175–9]

RIN 2060–AE37

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions

From the Production of Acrylonitrile

Butadiene Styrene (ABS) Resin,

Styrene Acrylonitrile (SAN) Resin,

Methyl Methacrylate Acrylonitrile

Butadiene Styrene (MABS) Resin,

Methyl Methacrylate Butadiene Styrene

(MBS) Resin, Polystyrene Resin, Poly

(Ethylene Terephthalate) (PET) Resin,

and Nitrile Resin (Group IV Polymers

and Resins)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of

public hearing.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16091

SUMMARY: The proposed rule would

reduce emissions of organic hazardous

air pollutants (HAP) from existing and

new facilities that manufacture one or

more of the following Group IV

polymers and resins: Acrylonitrile

butadiene styrene (ABS) resin, styrene

acrylonitrile (SAN) resin, methyl

methacrylate acrylonitrile butadiene

styrene (MABS) resin, methyl

methacrylate butadiene styrene (MBS)

resin, polystyrene resin, poly (ethylene

terephthalate) (PET) resin, and nitrile

resin. The EPA is in the process of

developing standards for a wide range of

types of polymer and resin production

facilities. The polymers and resins

covered by this proposed rule are

thermoplastics, and with two

exceptions, use styrene as the dominant

feedstock. These thermoplastics are

basically intermediate products used to

produce automotive plastic parts,

appliances and appliance parts,

housewares, polyester fibers, packing

and containers, soft drink bottles, and

toys. In the production of

thermoplastics, a variety of organic HAP

are used as monomers or are created as

by-products. The organic HAP emitted

by the facilities covered by this

proposed rule include styrene,

acrylonitrile, butadiene, ethylene glycol,

methanol, acetaldehyde, and dioxane.

Some of these pollutants are considered

to be mutagens and carcinogens, and all

can cause reversible or irreversible toxic

effects following exposure. The

proposed rule is estimated to reduce

organic HAP emissions from existing

facilities by 11,750 megagrams per year

(Mg/yr). The emission reductions

achieved by these standards, when

combined with the emission reductions

achieved by other similar standards,

will achieve the primary goal of the

Clean Air Act (Act) as amended in 1990,

which is to ‘‘enhance the quality of the

Nation’s air resources so as to promote

the public health and welfare and the

productive capacity of its population’’.

The proposed rule implements

section 112(d) of the Act, which

requires the Administrator or

Administrator’s designee, hereafter

referred to as Administrator, to regulate

emissions of HAP listed in section

112(b) of the Act. The intent of this rule

is to protect the public by requiring the

maximum degree of reduction in

emissions of organic HAP from new and

existing major sources, taking into

consideration the cost of achieving such

emission reduction, and any non-air

quality, health and environmental

impacts, and energy requirements.

Under today’s action, the EPA is also

proposing to revise subpart DDD of 40

CFR part 60 by removing all references

to polystyrene and PET facilities

contained therein. This proposed action

is being taken because today’s proposed

rule would supersede the requirements

specified in subpart DDD of 40 CFR part

60 for polystyrene and PET facilities.

Finally, under today’s action, the EPA

is proposing to add nitrile resin

production to the source category list

under section 112(c) of the Act and to

the source category schedule under

section 112(e) of the Act with a

promulgation date no later than

November 15, 2000.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before May 30, 1995.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by April 19, 1995, a public

hearing will be held on April 28, 1995

beginning at 10 a.m. Persons interested

in attending the hearing should call Ms.

Marguerite Thweatt at (919) 541–5607 to

verify that a hearing will be held.

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons

wishing to present oral testimony must

contact the EPA by April 19, 1995 by

contacting Ms. Marguerite Thweatt;

Organic Chemicals Group, (MD–13), U.

S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

5607.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air Docket Section (LE–

131), Attention: Docket No. A–92–45,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street SW., Washington, DC

20460. The EPA requests that a separate

copy also be sent to the contact person

listed below. The public hearing, if

required, will be held at the EPA’s

Office of Administration Auditorium,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

The docket is located at the above

address in room M–1500, Waterside

Mall (ground floor), and may be

inspected from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday; telephone number (202)

382–7548. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning the proposed

rule, contact Mr. Leslie Evans at (919)

541–5410, Organic Chemicals Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed regulatory text is not included

in this Federal Register document, but

is available in Docket No. A–92–45, on

the Technology Transfer Network

(TTN), or from the EPA contact person

designated in this notice. The TTN,

EPA’s electronic bulletin board,

provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air

pollution control. The service is free,

except for the cost of a telephone call.

Dial (919) 541–5742 for up to a 14,400

bps modem. If more information on the

TTN is needed, call the HELP line at

(919) 541–5384.

In addition to the proposed regulatory

text, the Basis and Purpose Document,

which contains the rationale for the

various components of the standard, is

available in the docket (Docket No. A–

92–45, Category II–A), and on the TTN.

This document is entitled Hazardous

Air Pollutant Emissions From Process

Units in the Thermoplastics

Manufacturing Industry—Basis and

Purpose Document for Proposed

Standards, March 1995, and has been

assigned document number EPA–453/

R–95–004a.

Other materials related to this

rulemaking, including technical

memoranda, are available for review in

the docket. Some of these memoranda

have been compiled into a single

document, the Supplementary

Information Document (SID), to allow

interested parties more convenient

access to the information. The SID is

available in the docket (Docket No. A–

92–45, Category II–A) and from the EPA

Library by calling (919) 541–2777. The

document is entitled Hazardous Air

Pollutant Emissions From Process Units

in the Thermoplastics Manufacturing

Industry—Supplementary Information

Document for Proposed Standards,

March 1995, and has been assigned

document number EPA–453/R–95–003a.

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. List of Affected Source Categories

II. Background

A. Summary of Considerations Made in

Developing This Rule

B. Regulatory Background

III. Authority for National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP

Development

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Source Categories To Be Regulated

B. Relationship to Other Rules

C. Pollutants To Be Regulated

D. Affected Emission Points

E. Format of the Standards

F. Proposed Standards

G. Compliance and Performance Test

Provisions and Monitoring Requirements

H. Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements

V. Solicitation of Comments

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost,

and Economic Impacts

A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP

B. Primary Air Impacts

C. Non-Air Impacts
16092 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

D. Energy Impacts

E. Cost Impacts

F. Economic Impacts

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

B. Docket

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

G. Miscellaneous

I. List of Affected Source Categories

Section 112 of the Act requires that

the EPA evaluate and control emissions

of HAP. The control of HAP is achieved

through promulgation of emission

standards under sections 112(d) and

112(f) of the Act and work practice and

equipment standards under section

112(h) of the Act for categories of

sources that emit HAP. On July 16,

1992, the EPA published an initial list

of major and area source categories to be

regulated, as required under section

112(c) of the Act. Included on that list

were major sources emitting HAP from

ABS, SAN, MABS, MBS, polystyrene,

and PET. Nitrile resin production is

being added to the source category list

under section 112(c) of the Act because,

based on information obtained during

the gathering of HAP emission data for

this proposed rule, the one facility

identified as producing nitrile resins

was determined to be a major source.

Further, the EPA decided to include

nitrile resin production under today’s

proposed rule because of similarities in

process operations, emission

characteristics, and control device

applicability and costs with the various

styrene-based resin source categories.

For the purpose of this notice, these

seven polymer and resin source

categories are collectively referred to as

the Group IV polymers and resins or the

Group IV thermoplastics.

The EPA identified a total of 66

facilities producing one or more of the

Group IV thermoplastics. Twenty

facilities were identified that produced

thermoplastics using multiple processes

and, thus, fall within multiple

subcategories. For example, six of the

PET facilities use both the continuous

terephthalic acid (TPA) process and the

continuous dimethyl terephthalate

(DMT) process.

All of the facilities considered in the

analysis supporting today’s proposed

rule are believed to be major sources

according to the 1990 Amendments

criterion of emitting or of having the

potential to emit 10 tons per year (tons/

yr) of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of

combined HAP. (A year, for the

purposes of compliance with this rule,

is any consecutive twelve month period

or 365 rolling days). The proposed rule

would apply to all major sources that

produce any of the seven thermoplastics

identified in this notice. Area sources

would not be subject to this proposed

rule.

In developing the background

information to support the proposed

rule, the EPA chose to subcategorize

four of the seven source categories for

purposes of analyzing the maximum

achievable control technology (MACT)

floors and developing regulatory

alternatives. A source category was

subcategorized to account for major

differences in production methods, raw

material usage, or both. Table 1

summarizes the subcategories

developed.

TABLE 1.—SUBCATEGORIZATION OF GROUP IV POLYMERS AND RESINSa

Source category Subcategory

Number of facilities in subcategory b

ABS ............................................................ Continuous mass ......................................................................................................... 5

Continuous emulsion ................................................................................................... 2

Batch emulsion ............................................................................................................ 4

Batch suspension ........................................................................................................ 2

Batch latex ................................................................................................................... 1

SAN ........................................................... Continuous ................................................................................................................... 3

Batch ............................................................................................................................ 2

ASA/AMSAN ................................................................................................................ 1

Polystyrene ................................................ Continuous ................................................................................................................... 22

Batch ............................................................................................................................ 11

EPS .............................................................................................................................. 7

PET ............................................................ TPA, continuous .......................................................................................................... 12

TPA, batch ................................................................................................................... 1

DMT, continuous ......................................................................................................... 10

DMT, batch .................................................................................................................. 10

a As discussed in the text, subcategorization was not needed for MABS, MBS, and nitrile facilities. Thus, these source categories are not

shown in this table. b Number of facilities include one or more process units of each described subcategory. Some facilities use more than one type of production

method or raw material (process). Therefore, it is incorrect to sum these numbers to calculate the total number of facilities within a source category.

ASA=acrylonitrile styrene acrylate.

AMSAN=alpha methyl styrene acrylonitrile.

EPS=expandable polystyrene.

TPA=terephthalic acid.

DMT=dimethyl terephthalate.

No subcategorization was found to be

justified for the three facilities

producing MBS. Only one facility was

found to produce MABS and only one

to produce nitrile resins. Hereafter, for

purposes of this preamble and the

proposed standards, the terms

‘‘subcategory’’ and ‘‘subcategories’’

include the production of MBS, MABS,

and nitrile even though these are source

categories.

Upon inspection (see Section IV,

Summary of Proposed Standards), it

may appear that subcategorization does

not affect the outcome of the proposed

standards since the same level of control

is required across most of the

subcategories for a given type of

emission point (e.g., storage vessel,

process vent, etc.). In fact,

subcategorization does affect the

proposed level of control for individual

types of emission points. As the

development of the proposed standards
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16093

progressed beyond the technical

analyses and the structure of the

regulation was examined, the EPA

considered different options that would

create fewer subcategories for defining

the source categories.

In previous rules, the EPA considered

by-products, co-products, and

intermediates to be products of a

process. In the implementation of these

previous rules, there has been confusion

over the meaning of the terms ‘‘product’’

and ‘‘to produce’’ and the correct way

to decide whether a source ‘‘produces’’

a listed chemical and is subject to the

standard.

This confusion arises because of the

complexity, diversity, and the highly

integrated nature of the subject

industries.

Because of this confusion,

applicability will be based on the

primary product that is produced by a

thermoplastic product process unit. Byproducts, co-products, and isolated

intermediates would not be considered

in determining applicability. For the

purposes of this rule, the EPA does not

consider wastes to be products. Also,

impurities or trace contaminants that

are coincidentally processed and are not

isolated are not considered to be a

product.

The primary product of the

thermoplastic product process unit is

determined only once, and the

determination would be based on the

product that represents the largest

percentage of the total mass produced

by the thermoplastic product process

unit.

II. Background

A. Summary of Considerations Made in

Developing This Rule

The Act was created, in part, ‘‘to

protect and enhance the quality of the

Nation’s air resources so as to promote

public health and welfare and the

productive capacity of its population’’

(section 101(b)(1) of the Act). As such,

this regulation protects the public

health by reducing emissions of some of

the HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) of

the Act.

The HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) of

the Act emitted by the thermoplastic

facilities covered by this proposed rule

include styrene, acrylonitrile,

butadiene, ethylene glycol, methanol,

acetaldehyde, and dioxane. Some of

these pollutants are considered to be

mutagens and carcinogens, and all can

cause reversible or irreversible toxic

effects following exposure. The

potential toxic effects include eye, nose,

throat, and skin irritation; liver and

kidney toxicity, and neurotoxicity.

These effects can range from mild to

severe. In extreme circumstances, death

can result from exposure. These adverse

health effects are associated with a wide

range of ambient concentrations and

exposure times and are influenced by

source-specific 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. Due to the volatility and

relatively low potential for

bioaccumulation of these pollutants, air

emissions are not expected to deposit in

land or water and cause subsequent

adverse human health or ecosystem

effects.

The EPA does not have the type of

current detailed data on each of the

thermoplastic facilities covered by this

rule, and the people living around the

facilities, that would be necessary to

conduct an analysis to determine the

actual population exposures to the

organic HAP emitted from these

facilities and resulting health effects.

Therefore, the EPA does not know the

extent to which the adverse health

effects described above occur in the

populations surrounding these facilities.

However, to the extent the adverse

effects do occur, the promulgated

standard will substantially reduce

emissions and exposures to the level

achievable with maximum achievable

control technology.

The alternatives considered in the

development of this regulation,

including those alternatives selected as

standards for new and existing sources,

are based on process and emissions data

received from the existing facilities

known by the EPA to be in operation.

Regulatory alternatives more stringent

than the MACT floor were selected

when they were judged to be reasonable

‘‘taking into consideration the cost of

achieving such emission reduction, and

any non-air quality health and

environmental impacts and energy

requirements’’ (Section 112(d)(2) of the

Act). In most instances, the proposed

standards reflect regulatory alternatives

that are judged to be reasonable and are

equivalent to or more stringent than the

MACT floor. In a few instances, the

MACT floor was found to have a

relatively high cost. In these cases, the

MACT floor was chosen because a less

costly, yet otherwise reasonable,

regulatory alternative was not available.

The proposed standards give existing

facilities 3 years from the date of

promulgation to comply. This is the

maximum amount allowed by the Act.

Based on the number of existing sources

affected by this rule, the EPA believes

that required retrofits or other actions

can be achieved in the timeframe

allotted. New facilities are required to

comply with the standard upon start-up.

The EPA sees no reason why new

facilities would not be able to comply

with the requirements of the standards

upon start-up.

Included in the proposed rule are

methods for determining initial

compliance as well as monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements. All of these components

are necessary to ensure that affected

sources will comply with the standards

both initially and over time. However,

the EPA has made every effort to

simplify the requirements in the rule.

This rule refers extensively to the HON

(40 CFR part 63, subparts F, G, and H).

In doing so, this rule has benefited from

the extensive public debate and

participation experienced in the HON

rulemaking. The EPA has also attempted

to maintain consistency with existing

regulations by either incorporating text

from existing regulations or referencing

the applicable sections, depending on

which method would be least confusing

for a given situation.

Representatives from other interested

EPA offices and programs, including

State and Regional environmental

agency personnel, participated in the

regulatory development process as

members of the Work Group. The Work

Group is involved in the regulatory

development process, and is given

opportunities to review and comment

on the regulation before proposal and

promulgation. Therefore, the EPA

believes that the implication to other

EPA offices and programs has been

adequately considered during the

development of these standards. In

addition, the EPA has met with some

members of industry concerning these

standards. Finally, industry, regulatory

authorities, and environmental groups

will have the opportunity to comment

on the proposed standards and provide

additional information during the

public comment period following

proposal.

These standards will result in an

organic HAP emission reduction of

11,750 Mg/yr for existing facilities and

7,395 Mg/yr for new sources. The

emission reductions achieved by these

standards, when combined with the

emission reductions achieved by other

standards mandated by the Act, will

achieve the primary goal of the Clean

Air Act, which is to ‘‘enhance the

quality of the Nation’s air resources so

as to promote the public health and

welfare and the productive capacity of

its population.’’
16094 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

B. Regulatory Background

In 1990 (55 FR 51010, December 11,

1990), the EPA promulgated new source

performance standards (NSPS) affecting

four types of polymer manufacturing

facilities (subpart DDD of 40 CFR part

60). Two of these four types—

polystyrene and PET—are being affected

by today’s proposed rule. In addition,

polystyrene manufacturing facilities

may be subject to State regulations as

the result of a control techniques

guideline (CTG) document (EPA–450/3–

83–008, November 1983; Docket No. A–

92–45, Category II-A) addressing, in

part, polystyrene manufacturing.

For polystyrene, subpart DDD applies

to those facilities that use a continuous

process to manufacture general purpose

or high impact polystyrene. Facilities

that produce general purpose or high

impact polystyrene using a batch

process were not covered under subpart

DDD because information at that time

indicated that no new facilities would

be constructed using batch processes to

produce general purpose or high impact

polystyrene. Subpart DDD also applies

to all facilities that manufacture

expandable polystyrene (EPS),

regardless of the process used.

For general purpose or high impact

polystyrene facilities using a continuous

process and all facilities producing EPS,

subpart DDD requires control of

continuous process volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from each

material recovery section. The standard

for material recovery section process

emissions is: (1) Limit the emissions of

total organic compounds (TOC) (minus

methane and ethane) to 0.0036

kilograms (kg) of TOC per megagram

(Mg) of product (0.0036 pounds (lbs)

TOC/1,000 lbs of product) from each

material recovery section, (2) limit the

outlet gas temperature from each final

condenser in each material recovery

section to ¥25 degrees Celcius (¥25° C)

(¥13° Fahrenheit (¥13° F)), or (3)

reduce emissions from each material

recovery section by 98 weight percent or

to 20 parts per million by volume

(ppmv). Modified or reconstructed

affected facilities with uncontrolled

emission rates at or below 0.05 kg TOC

per Mg of product were exempted from

this part of subpart DDD.

Like subpart DDD, the CTG applies to

material recovery section continuous

process emissions at polystyrene

facilities using a continuous process.

The CTG’s recommended emission limit

is 0.12 kg TOC/Mg of product.

Subpart DDD also requires control of

VOC emissions from equipment leaks

from polystyrene facilities using a

continuous process and from all EPS

facilities. With one exception, subpart

DDD’s standards for equipment leaks are

the same as those for synthetic organic

chemical manufacturing industry

(SOCMI) facilities under subpart VV of

40 CFR part 60. The one exception

concerns polymer pumps that are

designed with a ‘‘bleed port.’’ Such

pumps are exempted from the definition

of a ‘‘visible leak of fluid,’’ but the

exemption expires when the existing

pump is replaced or reconstructed.

As mentioned previously, subpart

DDD also applies to PET facilities that

use either a DMT or TPA continuous

process. Subpart DDD does not apply to

PET facilities that use a batch process

because the EPA did not expect any new

PET facilities to be constructed using a

batch process. For PET facilities using a

continuous process, subpart DDD only

requires control of selected process

emissions. Standards were not proposed

or promulgated for equipment leak

emissions at PET facilities because

available information at that time

showed that equipment leak

components at facilities using the

continuous TPA process were in heavy

liquid service and that continuous DMT

facilities were already covered by the

SOCMI equipment leak standards

(subpart VV of 40 CFR part 60).

Table 2 summarizes subpart DDD

requirements for process emissions for

new, modified, or reconstructed PET

facilities. For both DMT and TPA

continuous facilities, subpart DDD

limits ethylene glycol emissions from

the polymerization reaction section by

requiring compliance with an emission

rate limit (0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product)

and an ethylene glycol weight percent

concentration limit (either 0.35 or 6.0

percent depending on the type of

process) for the cooling water in the

cooling tower. In addition, subpart DDD

limits process emissions from the

material recovery section at continuous

DMT facilities and from the raw

material preparation section at

continuous TPA facilities.

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF NSPS PET STANDARDS

Process Affected

facility Viscosity Number of endfinishers Type of vacuum producer Standard

DMT .......... Material

Recovery.

Low ............... .................................. ................................................... 0.018 kg TOC/Mg of product OR limit temperature to +37 °F from each final condenser in the material recovery section.

High .............. Single ....................... ................................................... (same as above).

Multiple ..................... ................................................... (same as above).

DMT .......... Polymerization Reaction.Low ............... .................................. Not steam jets ........................... 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product.

Steam jets ................................. 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product AND 0.35 percent ethylene glycol by weight in the effluent exiting the vacuum system.

High .............. Single ....................... Not steam jets ........................... 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product.

Steam jets ................................. 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product AND 0.35 percent ethylene glycol by weight in the effluent exiting the vacuum system.

Multiple ..................... Not steam jets ........................... 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product.

Steam jets ................................. 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product AND 6.0 percent ethylene glycol by weight in the

cooling water in the cooling tower.

TPA ........... Raw Materials

Preparation.

Low ............... .................................. ................................................... 0.04 kg TOC/Mg of product.

High .............. Single ....................... ................................................... (same as above).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16095

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF NSPS PET STANDARDS—Continued

Process Affected

facility Viscosity Number of endfinishers Type of vacuum producer Standard

...................... Multiple ..................... ................................................... (same as above).

TPA ........... Polymerization

Reaction.

Low ............... .................................. Not steam jets ........................... 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product.

Steam jets ................................. 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product AND 0.35 percent ethylene glycol by weight in the effluent exiting the vacuum system.

High .............. Single ....................... Not steam jets ........................... 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product.

Steam jets ................................. 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product AND 0.35 percent ethylene glycol by weight in the effluent exiting the vacuum system.

Multiple ..................... Not steam jets ........................... 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product.

Steam jets ................................. 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product AND 6.0 percent ethylene glycol by weight in the

cooling water in the cooling tower.

Key:

DMT = dimethyl terephthalate.

TPA = terephthalic acid.

In a manner similar to polystyrene facilities, subpart DDD has uncontrolled emission rate thresholds at or below

which modified or reconstructed PET facilities are exempt. Table 3 summarizes these threshold emission rates.

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF PET THRESHOLD EMISSION RATES

Production process Process section

Uncontrolled

emission

rate, kg

TOC/Mg

product a

Poly(ethylene terephthalate), dimethyl terephthalate process ..... Material Recovery ........................................................................

Polymerization Reaction ..............................................................

0.12 b,c

1.80 c,d,e

Poly(ethylene terephthalate), terephthalic acid process .............. Raw Materials ..............................................................................

Preparation ...................................................................................

g

1.80 c,e,h

Polymerization Reaction .............................................................. 3.92 c,f,h

a ‘‘Uncontrolled emission rate’’ refers to the emission rate of a vent stream that vents directly to the atmosphere and to the emission rate of a

vent stream to the atmosphere that would occur in the absence of any add-on control devices but after any material recovery devices that constitute part of the normal material recovery operations in a process line where potential emissions are recovered for recycle or resale. bEmission rate applies to continuous emissions only.

cApplies to modified or reconstructed affected facilities only.

d Includes emissions from the cooling water tower.

eApplies to a process line producing low viscosity poly(ethylene terephthalate).

f fApplies to a process line producing high viscosity poly(ethylene terephthalate).

gSee footnote h.

hApplies to the sum of emissions to the atmosphere from the polymerization reaction section (including emissions from the cooling water

tower) and the raw materials preparation section (i.e., the esterifiers).

In 1994 (59 FR 46350, September 8,

1994), the EPA promulgated national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for industrial

process cooling towers (40 CFR part 63,

subpart G). This rule prohibits the use

of chromium-based water treatment

chemicals in industrial process cooling

towers. Owners and operators of

existing industrial process cooling

towers must comply within 18 months

of September 8, 1994, while owners and

operators of new industrial process

cooling towers must comply by

September 8, 1994 or at initial start-up,

depending on when construction was

commenced.

III. Authority for National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP

Development

Section 112 of the Act gives the EPA

the authority to establish national

standards to reduce air emissions from

sources that emit one or more HAP.

Section 112(b) contains a list of HAP to

be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c)

directs the EPA to use this pollutant list

to develop and publish a list of source

categories for which NESHAP will be

developed. The EPA must list all known

source categories and subcategories of

‘‘major sources’’ (defined below) that

emit one or more of the listed HAP. A

major source is defined in section 112(a)

as any stationary source or group of

stationary sources located within a

contiguous area and under common

control that emits or has the potential to

emit in the aggregate, considering

controls, 10 tons/yr or more of any one

HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any

combination of HAP. This list of source

categories was published in the Federal

Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576)

and includes ABS, SAN, MABS, MBS,

polystyrene, and PET. Today’s action

proposes to add nitrile resin production

to this list.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

The NESHAP are to be developed to

control HAP emissions from both new

and existing sources according to the

statutory directives set out in section
16096 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

112(d) of the Act. The statute requires

the standards to reflect the maximum

degree of reduction in emissions of HAP

that is achievable for new or existing

sources. This control level is referred to

as MACT. Consideration of control

levels more stringent than the MACT

floor (described below) must reflect

consideration of the cost of achieving

the emission reduction, any non-air

quality, health, and environmental

impacts, and energy requirements.

The MACT floor is the least stringent

level allowed for MACT standards. For

new sources, the standards for a source

category or subcategory ‘‘shall not be

less stringent than the emission control

that is achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source, as determined

by the Administrator’’ (section 112(d)(3)

of the Act). Existing source standards

shall be no less stringent than the

average emission limitation achieved by

the best performing 12 percent of the

existing sources for categories and

subcategories with 30 or more sources

or the average emission limitation

achieved by the best performing 5

sources for categories or subcategories

with fewer than 30 sources (section

112(d)(3) of the Act). These two

minimum levels of control define the

MACT floor for new and existing

sources.

Two interpretations have been

evaluated by the EPA for representing

the MACT floor for existing sources.

One interpretation is that the MACT

floor is represented by the worst

performing source of the best 12 percent

performing sources. The second

interpretation is that the MACT floor is

represented by the ‘‘average emission

limitation achieved’’ by the best

performing sources, where the

‘‘average’’ is based on a measure of

central tendency, such as the arithmetic

mean, median, or mode. This latter

interpretation is referred to as the

‘‘higher floor interpretation.’’ In a June

6, 1994 Federal Register notice (59 FR

29196), the EPA presented its

interpretation of the statutory language

concerning the MACT floor for existing

sources. Based on a review of the

statute, legislative history, and public

comments, the EPA believes that the

‘‘higher floor interpretation’’ is a better

reading of the statutory language. The

determination of the MACT floor for

existing sources under today’s rule

followed the ‘‘higher floor

interpretation.’’

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Source Categories To Be Regulated

Today’s proposed standards would

regulate organic HAP process emissions

from facilities in one of the 18

thermoplastic subcategories listed

below, provided that a facility is

determined to be a major source. For

this proposed rule, an affected source is

defined as one of the following:

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a continuous emulsion

process to produce ABS.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a continuous mass

process to produce ABS.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a batch emulsion process

to produce ABS.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a batch suspension

process to produce ABS.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a batch latex process to

produce ABS.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility producing MABS.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility producing MBS.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a continuous process to

produce SAN.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a batch process to

produce SAN.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility producing ASA/AMSAN.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a continuous process to

produce polystyrene.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a batch process to

produce polystyrene.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility producing EPS.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a continuous TPA

process to produce PET and any

collocated solid state processes.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a batch TPA process to

produce PET and any collocated solid

state processes.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a continuous DMT

process to produce PET and any

collocated solid state processes.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility using a batch DMT process to

produce PET and any collocated solid

state processes.

• All organic HAP emission points at

a facility producing nitrile resins.

The proposed rule regulates emissions

from solid state PET processes if they

are collocated with a TPA or DMT fed

PET process, but does not regulate

emissions from independently located

solid state PET processes (i.e., those that

purchase low molecular weight PET

from an off-site source). As part of the

rulemaking, information was submitted

by the industry for collocated solid state

PET processes, but none was submitted

for independently located solid state

PET processes.

(Note: The data request did not distinguish

solid state as a separate process which might

have precipitated companies not submitting

data concerning PET produced by this

process.)

In addition, the EPA believes that

independently located solid state PET

processes are likely to be non-major

sources because there is not a significant

source of organic HAP emissions from

the solid state process. The emissions

from a solid state process are typically

the result of release of residual

monomer in the low molecular weight

PET. For these reasons, the EPA chose

not to include independently located

solid state PET processes in today’s

proposed rule.

B. Relationship to Other Rules

Sources subject to the proposed rule

are also subject to other existing rules.

In some cases, the proposed rule

supersedes existing rules and affected

sources are no longer required to

comply with the existing rule. In other

cases, there is no conflict between the

existing rule and the proposed rule, and

in these cases, the affected source must

comply with both rules.

Sources subject to the proposed rule

and subject to the NESHAP for Certain

Processes Subject to the Negotiated

Regulation for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR

part 63, subpart I) are required to

continue to comply with subpart I until

the compliance date of the proposed

rule. After the compliance date of the

proposed rule, compliance with the

proposed rule will constitute

compliance with subpart I.

Sources subject to the proposed rule

may have storage vessels subject to the

NSPS for Volatile Organic Liquid

Storage Vessels (40 CFR part 60, subpart

Kb). After the compliance date for the

proposed rule, such storage vessels are

only subject to the proposed rule and

are no longer required to comply with

subpart Kb.

Some sources subject to the proposed

rule that produce PET or polystyrene are

also subject to the NSPS for Polymers

Manufacturing (40 CFR part 60, subpart

DDD). After the compliance date for the

proposed rule, such sources are only

subject to the proposed rule and are no

longer required to comply with subpart

DDD. As part of this rulemaking, the

EPA is proposing to modify subpart

DDD to exclude reference to the

manufacture of polystyrene and PET.

Sources subject to the proposed rule

may have cooling towers subject to the

NESHAP for Industrial Cooling Towers
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16097

(40 CFR part 63, subpart Q). There is no

conflict between the requirements of

subpart Q and the proposed rule.

Therefore, sources subject to both rules

must comply with both rules.

C. Pollutants To Be Regulated

The subcategories covered by today’s

proposed rule emit a variety of organic

HAP. Among the most significant

emissions of organic HAP are the

following: Styrene, acrylonitrile, and

butadiene from styrene-based resin

production, which includes the

production of ABS, SAN, MABS, MBS,

and polystyrene; acrylonitrile from

nitrile resin production; and ethylene

glycol, methanol, acetaldehyde, and

dioxane from PET production. The

proposed standards would regulate

emissions of these compounds, as well

as a variety of other organic HAP that

are emitted.

D. Affected Emission Points

Emissions from the following types of

emission points (i.e. emission source

types) are being covered by today’s

proposed rule: storage vessels, process

vents, equipment leaks, wastewater

operations, heat exchange systems and

process contact cooling towers.

E. Format of the Standards

As discussed in more detail in Section

IV.F, Proposed Standards, the

Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)

(subparts F, G, H, and I of 40 CFR part

63), the polymer manufacturing NSPS

(subpart DDD of 40 CFR part 60), and

the Batch Processes Alternative Control

Techniques (ACT) document (EPA 453/

R–93–017, November 1993; Docket No.

A–92–45, Category II–A) provided a

basis for selection of the proposed

formats. In most instances, the format of

today’s proposed standards is the same

as those found in the HON, Batch

Processes ACT, and subpart DDD. The

following paragraphs summarize the

selected formats, including those that

are different from the HON, Batch

Processes ACT, and subpart DDD. The

formats and their selection are

discussed in more detail in the Basis

and Purpose Document for this

proposed regulation (Docket No. A–92–

45, Category II–A).

For storage vessels, the format of the

proposed standards is dependent on the

method selected to comply with the

standards. If tank improvements (e.g.,

internal or external floating roofs with

proper seals and fittings) are selected,

the format is a combination of design,

equipment, work practice, and

operational standards. If a closed vent

system and control device are selected,

the format is a combination of design

and equipment standards.

For process vents, the format of the

proposed standards is also dependent

on the method selected to comply with

the standards. If a flare is selected, the

format is a combination of equipment

and operating specifications. If a control

device other than a flare is used, the

formats are a percent reduction and an

outlet concentration.

For equipment leaks, the proposed

standards incorporate several formats:

Equipment, design, base performance

levels (e.g., maximum allowable percent

leaking valves), work practices, and

operational practices. Different formats

are necessary for different types of

equipment because of the nature of the

equipment, available control

techniques, and applicability of the

measurement method.

For wastewater streams requiring

control, the proposed standards

incorporate several formats: Equipment,

operational, work practice, and

emission standards. The particular

format selected depends on which

portion of the wastewater stream is

involved. For transport and handling

equipment, the selected format is a

combination of equipment standards

and work practices. For the reduction of

organic HAP from the wastewater

stream itself, several alternative formats

are included, including five alternative

numerical emission limit formats

(overall percent reduction for total

volatile organic HAP (VOHAP),

individual organic HAP percent

reduction, effluent concentration limit

for total VOHAP, individual VOHAP

effluent concentration limits, and mass

removal for organic HAP) and

equipment design and operation

standard for a steam stripper. For vapor

recovery and destruction devices other

than flares, the format is a weight

percent reduction. For flares, the format

is a combination of equipment and

operating specifications.

Finally, a work practice standard is

adopted for all cooling water/process

heat exchange systems at Group IV resin

facilities. This standard requires a leak

detection and repair program to detect

and repair leaks of organic HAP into

cooling tower water. In addition, the

proposed standards include a work

practice standard that prohibits the use

of cooling tower water in contact

condensers in vacuum systems located

at PET facilities.

F. Proposed Standards

With relatively few exceptions, the

standards being proposed under today’s

action for storage vessels, continuous

process vents, equipment leaks,

wastewater operations, and heat

exchange systems are the same as those

promulgated for the corresponding

types of emission points at facilities

subject to the HON (subparts F, G, H,

and I). The proposed standards also

require emissions from certain batch

process vents to be reduced by at least

90 percent or to be controlled in a flare

that meets the requirements of § 63.11(b)

of subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. (The

criteria used to determine which batch

process vents require control was based

on the approach described in the Batch

Processes ACT.) The standards being

proposed today for certain continuous

process vents from polystyrene facilities

and from PET facilities using a

continuous process require the same

levels of control as were promulgated

for these facilities under subpart DDD of

40 CFR part 60. Finally, for PET

facilities, the proposed standards would

prohibit the use of cooling tower water

in contact condensers in the vacuum

systems and would require that all

vacuum system wastewater containing

any of the organic HAP identified in

Table 9 of the HON wastewater

provisions be controlled to the same

level of control as required under the

HON, regardless of the wastewater

stream’s organic HAP content or

flowrate.

Under the proposed standards,

emissions from existing or new batch

process vents, heat exchange systems

not including process contact cooling

towers, and equipment leaks are

required to be controlled to the levels

specified in the proposed standards.

Emissions from existing storage vessels,

continuous process vents, process

wastewater streams, and process contact

cooling towers are required to be

controlled to the levels specified in the

proposed standards or alternatively, the

emissions averaging compliance

approach specified in the rule may be

used. Emissions from new storage

vessels, continuous process vents,

process wastewater streams, and process

contact cooling towers are required to be

controlled to the levels specified in the

proposed standards. The emissions

averaging compliance approach may not

be used for new sources.

Tables 4 and 5 summarize the level of

control being proposed under today’s

proposed standards. For those types of

emission points where the level of

control is the same as the HON, this is

indicated in the table by the acronym

‘‘HON.’’ Similarly, where the proposed

level of control is the same as

promulgated under subpart DDD of 40

CFR part 60, this is indicated by the use

of the words ‘‘same as under subpart

DDD.’’ Finally, where the proposed
16098 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

level of control is more stringent than

the level of control in the HON or in

subpart DDD for that type of emission

point, the words ‘‘MACT floor’’ are

used.

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES IN RELATIONSHIP TO SUBPARTS G AND H OF

40 CFR PART 63 AND SUBPART DDD OF 40 CFR PART 60

Subcategory

Type of emission point

Storage

vessels Process vents Equipmentleaks Wastewater Heat exchange systems

ABS, continuous

emulsion.

HON ........ HON .......................................................... HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

ABS, continuous mass HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

ABS, batch emulsion . HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

ABS, batch suspension.HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

ABS, latex .................. HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

MABS ......................... HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

MBS ........................... HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: MACT Floor

Batch Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

SAN, continuous ........ HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

SAN, batch ................. HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

ASA/AMSAN .............. MACT

Floor.

MACT Floor ............................................... HON ........ No control ....... HON for heat exchange systems.

Polystyrene, continuous.MACT

Floor.

Continuous Process Vents from material

recovery: same as subpart DDD Other

Continuous Process vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

Polystyrene, batch ..... HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

Expandable polystyrene.HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

PET-TPA, continuous HON ........ Continuous Process Vents from raw material preparation and polymerization

reaction sections: same as subpart

DDD Other Continuous Process vents:

HON Batch Process Vents: 90 percent

reduction or compliant flare.

HON ........ HON for

wastewater

(including all

vacuum system generated

wastewater).a.

No cooling tower water allowed

in vacuum system contact

condensers. HON for heat

exchange systems.

PET-TPA, batch -

DMT, batch.

HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON for

wastewater

(including all

vacuum system generated

wastewater)..

No cooling tower water allowed

in vacuum system contact

condensers. HON for heat

exchange systems.

PET-DMT, continuous HON ........ Continuous Process Vents from material

recovery and polymerization reaction

sections: same as subpart DDD Other

Continuous Process vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON for

wastewater

(including all

vacuum system generated

wastewater).a.

No cooling tower water allowed

in vacuum system contact

condensers. HON for heat

exchange systems.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16099

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES IN RELATIONSHIP TO SUBPARTS G AND H OF

40 CFR PART 63 AND SUBPART DDD OF 40 CFR PART 60—Continued

Subcategory

Type of emission point

Storage

vessels Process vents Equipmentleaks Wastewater Heat exchange systems

Nitrile .......................... MACT

Floor.

Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

a Vacuum system wastewater streams containing any organic HAP identified in Table 9 of the HON wastewater provisions (subpart G) shall be

considered Group 1 and are required to be controlled.

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES IN RELATIONSHIP TO SUBPARTS G & H OF 40 CFR

PART 63 AND SUBPART DDD OF 40 CFR PART 60

Subcategory

Type of emission point

Storage

vessels Process vents Equipmentleaks Wastewater Heat exchange systems

ABS, continuous

emulsion.

HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

ABS, continuous mass Regulatory

Alternative

2 a.

Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

ABS. batch emulsion . HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

ABS. batch suspension.HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

ABS, latex .................. HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

MABS ......................... HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

MBS ........................... HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

SAN, continuous ........ MACT

Floor.

Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

SAN, batch ................. HON ........ MACT Floor ............................................... HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

ASA/AMSAN .............. MACT

Floor.

MACT Floor ............................................... HON ........ No control ....... HON for heat exchange systems.

Polystyrene, continuous.MACT

Floor.

Continuous Process Vents from material

recovery: Same as subpart DDD Other

Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

Polystyrene, batch ..... HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

Expandable polystyrene.HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

PET—TPA, continuous.HON ........ Continuous Process Vents from raw material preparation and polymerization

reaction sections: same as subpart

DDD Other Continuous Process Vents:

HON Batch Process Vents: 90 percent

reduction or a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON for

wastewater

(including all

vacuum system generated

wastewater).b.

No cooling tower water allowed

in vacuum system contact

condensers. HON for heat

exchange systems.
16100 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES IN RELATIONSHIP TO SUBPARTS G & H OF 40 CFR

PART 63 AND SUBPART DDD OF 40 CFR PART 60—Continued

Subcategory

Type of emission point

Storage

vessels Process vents Equipmentleaks Wastewater Heat exchange systems

PET—TPA, batch—

DMT, batch.

HON ........ Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON for

wastewater

(including all

vacuum system generated

wastewater).b.

No cooling tower water allowed

in vacuum system contact

condensers. HON for heat

exchange systems.

PET—DMT, continuous.HON ........ Continuous Process Vents from material

recovery and polymerization reaction

sections: same as subpart DDD Other

Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON for

wastewater

(including all

vacuum system generated

wastewater).b.

No cooling tower water allowed

in vacuum system contact

condensers. HON for heat

exchange systems.

Nitrile .......................... MACT

Floor.

Continuous Process Vents: HON Batch

Process Vents: 90 percent reduction or

a compliant flare.

HON ........ HON ............... HON for heat exchange systems.

aThe proposed standard is more stringent than the MACT floor, which is more stringent than the HON.

bVacuum system wastewater streams containing any organic HAP identified in Table 9 of the HON wastewater provisions (subpart G) shall be

considered Group 1 and are required to be controlled.

1. Storage vessels

Tables 6 and 7 summarize the proposed standards for existing and new storage vessels, respectively. The proposed

standards would require owners and operators to first determine whether or not a storage vessel was required to be

controlled. This is done through the application of certain criteria to each storage vessel. For those storage vessels

determined to require control, the proposed rule then specifies the level of control required.

TABLE 6.—PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR EXISTING STORAGE VESSELS

Subcategory Applicability criteria a Level of Control b

All ABS SAN, continuous SAN, batch MABS

MBS Polystyrene, batch All PET Nitrile (except as noted below).

Vapor pressure ≥0.75 psia and capacity

≥40,000 gallons c.

Vapor pressure ≥1.9 psia and capacity

≥20,000 gallons c ..........................................

If vapor pressure is <11.1 psia:

1. fixed roof and internal floating roof; or

2. external floating roof; or

3. an external floating roof converted to an internal floating roof; or

4. a closed vent system and control device.

If vapor pressure ≥11.1 psia: a closed vent

system and control device d

ASA/AMSAN ...................................................... AMST for capacities ≥10,200 gallons .............. 98 percent reduction.

Styrene/acrylonitrile for capacities ≥1,000 gallons.98 percent reduction.

Acrylonitrile for capacities ≥20,000 gallons ..... 98 percent reduction.

Any other chemical: .........................................

Vapor pressure ≥0.75 psia and capacity

≥40,000 gallonsc.

Vapor pressure ≥1.9 psia and capacity

≥20,000 gallons c ..........................................

If vapor pressure is <11.1 psia:

1. fixed roof and internal floating roof; or

2. external floating roof; or

3. an external floating roof converted to an internal floating roof; or

4. a closed vent system and control device.

If vapor pressure ≥11.1 psia: a closed vent

system and control device 0d

Nitrile .................................................................. Control all acrylonitrile storage vessels ≥3,500

gallons.

(same as the HON level of control).

Polystyrene, continuous ..................................... Vapor pressure 0.28 psia and capacity

≥20,000 gallons.

Vapor pressure ≥2.08 psia and capacity

≥10,000 but less than 20,000 gallons ..........

(same as the HON level of control)

aStorage vessels that meet the criteria are defined as Group 1 storage vessels and control of their emissions would be required. Storage vessels that do not meet the criteria are defined as Group 2 storage vessels and control of their emissions is not required. b Required for Group 1 storage vessels only.

cThe applicability criteria for these subcategories are the same as in the HON.

dThe level of control is the same as the HON.

KEY: AMST = alpha methyl styrene.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16101

TABLE 7.—PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR NEW STORAGE VESSELS

Subcategory Applicability criteria a Level of control b

All ABS (except CM) SAN, batch MABS MBS

Polystyrene, batch All PET Nitrile (except as

noted below).

Vapor pressure ≥0.1 psia and capacity

≥40,000 gallons c.

Vapor pressure ≥1.9 psia and capacity

≥10,000 gallons c ..........................................

If vapor pressure is <11.1 psia:

1. fixed roof and internal floating roof; or

2. external floating roof; or

3. an external floating roof converted to an internal floating roof; or

4. a closed vent system and control device.

If vapor pressure ≥11.1 psia: a closed vent

system and control device d.

ABS, CM ............................................................ VP ≥ 1.9 psia and capacity ≥10,000 gallons

and <12,000 gallons.

Styrene for capacities ≥12,000 gallons ............

VP ≥ 0.0782 psia and ≥12,000 gallons ...........

(same as the HON level of control).

SAN, continuous ................................................ VP ≥ 0.0735 to <0.1 psia and capacity

≥600,000 gallons.

90 percent reduction.

VP ≥ 0.1 to <1.45 psia and ≥40,000 gallons ... (same as the HON level of control).

VP ≥ 1.45 to <14.7 psia and capacity ≥8,000

to <40,000 gallons.

98 percent reduction.

ASA/AMS ........................................................... AMST for capacities ≥10,200 gallons .............. 98 percent reduction.

Styrene/acrylonitrile for capacities ≥1,000 gallons.98 percent reduction.

Acrylonitrile for capacities ≥20,000 gallons ..... 98 percent reduction.

Any other chemical: .........................................

Vapor pressure ≥0.1 psia and capacity

≥40,000 gallons c.

Vapor pressure ≥1.9 psia and capacity

≥10,000 gallons c ..........................................

(same as the HON level of control).

Nitrile .................................................................. Control all acrylonitrile storage vessels ≥

3,500 gallons.

(same as the HON level of control).

Polystyrene, continuous ..................................... Vapor pressure ≥ 0.78 psia and capacity ≥

29,000 gallons.

Vapor pressure ≥ 0.09 psia and capacity ≥

12,000 gallons but less than 29,000 gallons.

Vapor pressure ≥ 1.1 psia and capacity ≥

5,170 gallons but less than 12,000 gallons .

(same as the HON level of control).

aStorage vessels that meet the criteria are defined as Group 1 storage vessels and control of their emissions would be required. Storage vessels that do not meet the criteria are defined as Group 2 storage vessels and control of their emissions is not required. b Required for Group 1 storage vessels only.

cThe applicability criteria for these subcategories are the same as those in the HON.

d The level of control is the same as in the HON.

KEY: CM = continuous mass; VP = vapor pressure.

a. Applicability criteria. For most

existing and new storage vessels, the

proposed criteria for determining which

storage vessels are to be controlled are

identical to the criteria from the HON

storage vessel provisions and are based

on storage vessel capacity and vapor

pressure of the stored material.

Typically, the vapor pressures and

storage vessel capacity criteria that

determine Group 1 or Group 2 status are

different for existing and new sources.

As in the HON, if a storage vessel meets

the applicability criteria and is required

to be controlled under today’s proposed

rule, it is referred to as a Group 1 storage

vessel. If a storage vessel is not required

to apply controls, it is referred to as a

Group 2 storage vessel.

For new ABS, continuous mass

facilities, the applicability criteria also

rely on vapor pressure and storage

vessel capacity, but use different levels

of each for defining a Group 1 storage

vessel (see Table 7).

For new continuous SAN facilities,

the proposed standards for storage

vessels rely on five different

combinations of vapor pressure and

storage vessel capacity to determine

Group 1 storage vessels. These

combinations of vapor pressure and

storage vessel capacity are shown in

Table 7.

For existing continuous polystyrene

facilities, the proposed standards for

storage vessels rely on two

combinations of vapor pressure and

storage vessel capacity to determine

Group 1 storage vessels. These

combinations of vapor pressure and

storage vessel capacity are shown in

Table 6.

For new continuous polystyrene

facilities, the proposed standards for

storage vessels rely on three

combinations of vapor pressure and

storage vessel capacity to determine

Group 1 storage vessels. These

combinations of vapor pressure and

storage vessel capacity are shown in

Table 7.

For existing and new ASA/AMSAN

facilities, the proposed standards for

storage vessels have two parts to the

applicability criteria. The first part

identifies specific chemical and storage

vessel capacity combinations. The

second part applies vapor pressure and

storage vessel capacity applicability

criteria for storage vessels containing

chemicals not specifically identified.

For existing and new nitrile facilities,

all acrylonitrile storage vessels with

capacities greater than or equal to 3,500

gallons are required to be controlled.

For all other chemicals, the applicability

criteria are the same as in the HON.

b. Level of control. Except for the

subcategories discussed below, the level

of control required for storage vessels

determined to be Group 1 storage

vessels under the appropriate

applicability criteria being proposed in

today’s rule is either technical

modification to the tank (e.g., the

installation of an internal floating roof)
16102 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

or the use of a closed vent system and

control device that is generally required

to achieve at least 95 percent emission

reduction. (This is the same level of

control as required under the HON.) For

all subcategories, storage vessels

determined to be Group 2 are not

required to be controlled.

For new continuous SAN facilities,

different levels of control for two of the

five applicability criteria combinations

are being proposed. For the applicability

combination of vapor pressure greater

than 0.0735 but less than 0.1 pounds per

square inch absolute (psia) and storage

vessel capacity greater than or equal to

600,000 gallons, the proposed standard

would require an emission reduction of

90 percent or more. For the applicability

combination of vapor pressure greater

than or equal to 1.45 but less than 14.7

psia and storage vessel capacity greater

than or equal to 8,000 gallons but less

than 40,000 gallons, the proposed

standard would require an emission

reduction of 98 percent or more.

For ASA/AMSAN facilities, different

levels of control for storage vessels

determined to be Group 1 based on the

specific chemical/storage vessel

capacity combination criteria are being

proposed. For these storage vessels, the

level of control being proposed is 98

percent.

2. Process Vents

As for storage vessels, the proposed

standards for process vents require

owners and operators to first determine

whether or not a process vent (or set of

process vents) requires control and, if

so, then specifies the level of control

required.

a. Applicability criteria. Tables 8 and

9 summarize the proposed applicability

criteria for continuous and batch

process vents at existing and new

facilities, respectively. As for storage

vessels, process vents that meet the

applicability criteria are referred to as

Group 1 process vents and those that do

not are referred to as Group 2 process

vents. With the exceptions discussed

below, the proposed rule would require

control of only those process vents

determined to be Group 1 process vents

under the appropriate criteria.

TABLE 8.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROCESS VENT APPLICABILITY CRITERIA FOR EXISTING FACILITIES

Process vents Subcategory Applicability criteria

Continuous Unit Operations ...... All (except as specified below) ......................... TREa ≤ 1.

MBS .................................................................. TREa ≤ 3.7.

ASA/AMSAN ..................................................... None. All vents are required to be controlled.

Polystyrene, continuous: material recovery ...... None. Must meet standard.

PET/DMT, continuous: material recovery ......... 0.12 kg TOC per Mg productb.

PET/DMT, continuous: polymerization reaction None. Must meet standard.

PET/TPA, continuous: raw material preparation

and polymerization reaction.

None. Must meet standard.

Batch Unit Operations .............. All ...................................................................... Stream volatility Flowrate regression

equationc

Low ....................................... (0.00437) AE—51.6d.

Moderate ............................... (0.00187) AE—14.0d.

High ....................................... (0.00081) AE—8.5d.

aThe total resource effectiveness (TRE) value is a reflection of the cost effectiveness of controlling an individual process vent. There are different TRE coefficients for existing and new process vents. b If emissions from the described process vents are greater than the applicability criteria, control is required.

c If actual stream flowrate (standard cubic meters per minute) is less than the flowrate calculated by the regression equation, the process vent

is required to be controlled. dAE = annual emissions in kilograms per year.

TABLE 9.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROCESS VENT APPLICABILITY CRITERIA FOR NEW FACILITIES

Process vents Subcategory Applicability criteria

Continuous Unit Operations ...... All (except as specified below) ......................... TREa ≤ 1

SAN, batch ........................................................ None. Must meet standard.

ASA/AMSAN ..................................................... None. All vents are required to be controlled.

Polystyrene, continuous: material recovery ...... None. Must meet standard.

PET/DMT, continuous: material recovery and

polymerization reaction.

None. Must meet standard.

PET/TPA, continuous: Raw material preparation and polymerization reaction.None. Must meet standard.

Batch Unit Operations .............. All (except as specified below) ......................... Stream volatility Flowrate regression equationb

Low ....................................... (0.00437) AE—51.6c.

Moderate ............................... (0.00187) AE—14.0c.

High ....................................... (0.00081) AE—8.5c.

SAN, batch ........................................................ None ..................................... Must meet standard.

aThe total resource effectiveness (TRE) value is a reflection of the cost effectiveness of controlling an individual process vent. There are different TRE coefficients for existing and new process vents. b If actual stream flowrate (standard cubic meters per minute) is less than the flowrate calculated by the regression equation, the process vent

is required to be controlled. cAE=annual emissions in kilograms per year.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16103

Except for certain PET and

polystyrene continuous process vents,

Group 1 continuous process vents are

determined by comparing each process

vent’s total resource effectiveness (TRE)

value to a TRE value of unity. The TRE

is a reflection of the costs and other

associated impacts of controlling an

individual process vent. It is determined

based on process vent stream

characteristics such as emissions (mass

per hour), heat content, and flowrate.

The procedure in the proposed rule for

determining Group 1 process vents is

the same procedure as in the HON.

Except for continuous process vents at

existing MBS facilities, continuous

process vents with a TRE value of 1 or

less would be classified as a Group 1

process vent. For continuous process

vents at existing MBS facilities, a TRE

value of 3.7 or less defines a Group 1

process vent.

As seen in Tables 8 and 9, there are

no applicability criteria specified for

several subcategories. At these facilities,

a Group 1/Group 2 determination does

not need to be made and all process

vents are required to be controlled.

For process vents associated with the

material recovery section from existing

PET facilities using a continuous DMT

process, Group 1 process vents are

determined by comparing uncontrolled

emission rates with threshold emission

rates. Process vents associated with the

material recovery section at an existing

PET facility using a continuous DMT

process would be considered Group 1

process vents if the uncontrolled

emission rate is greater than 0.12 kg

TOC per Mg of product (see Table 8).

For other process vents at existing and

new polystyrene and PET facilities (see

Tables 8 and 9), there are no

applicability criteria. These process

vents must meet the proposed

standards.

For process vents from batch unit

operations, the process vent is first

characterized as to its volatility—low,

medium, or high. Next, the estimate of

the stream’s annual emissions is entered

in the appropriate flowrate regression

equation. If the actual flowrate is less

than the calculated flowrate, then the

batch process vent is a Group 1 vent

under these standards, and control is

required. As seen in Tables 8 and 9, the

batch process vent applicability criteria

are the same for existing and new

sources, except for new SAN batch

facilities.

For new SAN batch facilities, there

are no applicability criteria for

individual process vent streams; all

process vents are subject to control in

that the proposed standard for these

facilities requires an overall emission

reduction of 84 percent from all process

vents.

A batch process vent that is combined

with a continuous process vent prior to

a control or recovery device is not

required to comply with the batch

process vent provisions if there are no

emissions to the atmosphere up until

the point the batch vent stream is

combined with the continuous vent

stream. The combined vent would be

required to comply with the continuous

process vent provisions. The presence of

a batch process vent in a continuous

process vent stream would necessitate

that all applicability tests and

performance tests be conducted while

the batch process vent is emitting (i.e.

at maximum operating conditions).

b. Level of control. For continuous

process vents, most of the facilities are

required to control Group 1 process

vents by at least 98 percent. If a flare is

used, it must meet the design and

operating requirements of § 63.11(b) of

subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. Exceptions

to this are described in the paragraphs

below.

For continuous process emissions

from the material recovery section of

polystyrene plants using a continuous

process, the proposed standards would

(1) limit the emissions of TOC (minus

methane and ethane) to 0.0036 kg TOC/

Mg per megagram (Mg) of product

(0.0036 pounds (lbs) TOC/1,000 lbs of

product) from each material recovery

section, or (2) limit the outlet gas

temperature from each final condenser

in each material recovery section to

¥25°C (¥13°F), or (3) reduce emissions

from each material recovery section by

98 weight percent or to 20 ppmv. These

are the same requirements as in subpart

DDD.

For PET facilities using a continuous

TPA process, the proposed standards

would limit continuous process vent

emissions from (1) the raw material

preparation section to 0.04 kg TOC/Mg

of product and (2) the polymerization

reaction section to 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of

product. Similarly, for PET facilities

using a continuous DMT process, the

proposed standards would limit (1)

continuous process vent emissions from

the material recovery section to 0.018 kg

TOC/Mg of product or the temperature

to 37°F from each final condenser in the

material recovery section and (2)

continuous process vent emissions from

the polymerization reaction section to

0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product. These are

also the same requirements that are in

subpart DDD, with the exception that

cooling tower emissions would not be

considered as part of the polymerization

reaction section.

For Group 1 continuous process

emissions from other process sections at

polystyrene and PET facilities, the

proposed standards would require

emission reduction by at least 98

percent or control by a flare that meets

the requirements of § 63.11(b) of subpart

A of 40 CFR part 63.

For batch process vents, the proposed

standards would require Group 1

process vents from batch unit operations

to be controlled by at least 90 percent.

There are three subcategories where

the proposed standards are based on the

MACT floor. These subcategories are

existing MBS facilities, existing and

new ASA/AMSAN facilities, and new

SAN, batch facilities.

For existing MBS facilities, the

proposed standards require continuous

process vents at facilities to either (1)

meet an emission level of 0.000590 kg

of emissions per megagram of product

for all continuous process vents or (2)

control all continuous process vents

with a total resource effectiveness (TRE)

of 3.7 or less by at least 98 percent. The

TRE is to be calculated for each process

vent using the same TRE coefficients as

for other existing sources. The

development of the MACT floor and

applicability criteria for MBS existing

sources is documented in Docket No. A–

92–45, Category II–B and in the SID.

For both existing and new ASA/

AMSAN facilities, the proposed rule

requires all process vents (continuous

and batch) at both existing and new

facilities to control emissions by at least

98 percent.

For new SAN, batch facilities, the

proposed rule requires an overall

emission reduction of 84 percent of

process vent emissions.

3. Equipment Leaks

For all the subcategories, both existing

and new facilities would be required to

implement a leak detection and repair

(LDAR) program. With a few exceptions,

the LDAR program being proposed is

the same as that specified in the

National Emission Standards for

Organic HAP for Equipment Leaks (40

CFR part 63, subpart H) and the

National Emission Standards for

Organic HAP for Certain Processes

Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for

Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63,

subpart I). Under the proposed

standards, work practice requirements

to reduce emissions from equipment

that are in volatile HAP service for 300

or more hours per year (hr/yr) are

specified. The proposed standards

define ‘‘in volatile HAP service’’ as

being in contact with or containing

process fluid that contains a total of 5

percent or more total HAP. Equipment
16104 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

subject to the proposed standards are:

Valves, pumps, compressors,

connectors, pressure relief devices,

open-ended valves or lines, sampling

connection systems, instrumentation

systems, agitators, surge control vessels,

bottoms receivers, and closed-vent

systems and control devices.

Affected sources currently complying

with the NESHAP for Certain Processes

Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for

Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63,

subpart I) are required to continue to

comply with subpart I until the

compliance date of today’s proposed

rule. Further, affected sources

complying with subpart I through a

quality improvement program shall be

allowed to continue these programs

without interruption as part of

complying with today’s proposed rule.

In other words, becoming subject to

today’s proposed rule does not restart or

reset the ‘‘compliance clock’’ as it

relates to reduced burden earned

through a quality improvement

program.

4. Wastewater

Except for ASA/AMSAN facilities, the

proposed standards require owners and

operators to determine for each

wastewater stream at its point of

generation whether it is a Group 1 or

Group 2 wastewater stream. As for

process vents, Group 1 wastewater

streams are required to be controlled,

while Group 2 wastewater streams are

not required to be controlled. The

wastewater stream characteristics used

to make the Group 1/Group 2

applicability determination are flowrate

and organic HAP concentration. The

proposed criteria for determining Group

1 wastewater streams are presented in

Table 10 and are the same criteria used

in the HON. The level of control

required for Group 1 wastewater streams

is dependent upon the organic HAP

constituents in the wastewater stream.

The levels of control proposed for these

standards are the same as those for the

HON. The proposed rule would not

control wastewater emissions from any

existing or new ASA/AMSAN facilities.

TABLE 10.—PROPOSED WASTEWATER APPLICABILITY CRITERIA a b

Existing source criteria New source criteria

VOHAPc concentration  ́ 10,000 ppmw ..................................................

or

VOHAPc concentration  ́ 1,000 ppmw and flow rate  ́ 10 liters per

minute ...................................................................................................

Same as existing criteria

and

for a subset of organic HAP...VOHAPc concentration  ́10 ppmw and

flowrate  ́0.02 liters per minute.

a Wastewater streams meeting these criteria are considered Group 1 wastewater streams and control is required.

b There are exemptions for minimal flowrates and concentrations.

c VOHAP=volatile organic HAP.

The proposed standards require

owners and operators to comply with

the maintenance wastewater

requirements in § 63.105 of subpart F of

this part. These provisions require

owners and operators to include a

description of procedures for managing

wastewaters generated during

maintenance in their start-up, shutdown

and malfunction plan. The start-up,

shutdown, and malfunction plan is

required under subpart A of 40 CFR part

63.

5. Heat Exchange Systems and Process

Contact Cooling Towers

Today’s proposed standards would

require a monitoring program to detect

leakage of organic HAP from the process

into the cooling water. The proposed

monitoring program is the same as that

in the HON (subpart F of this part). The

proposed rule would also prohibit the

use of cooling tower water in contact

condensers in the vacuum systems at

PET facilities. Further, if a wastewater

stream is generated from the vacuum

system and it contains any of the

organic HAP identified in Table 9 of the

HON wastewater provisions (subpart G),

the proposed rule would require it to be

controlled regardless of its organic HAP

concentration or flowrate. The level of

control required is the same as that for

a Group 1 wastewater stream.

These provisions for control of

emissions from process contact cooling

towers are independent of the

provisions of the NESHAP for Industrial

Cooling Towers (40 CFR part 63, subpart

Q) which may also be applicable to

these cooling towers.

The EPA solicits comments on the

emission reduction potential, costs, and

technical feasibility of all control

options for process contact cooling

towers at PET facilities. Any comments

on alternate control options should

address the emissions from the cooling

tower, the emissions from any

wastewater discharged from the

equipment required by the control

option, and any ‘‘reactor process’’ or

‘‘distillation column’’ vent emissions

associated with the option.

6. Emissions Averaging

Today’s proposed standards would

apply essentially the same emissions

averaging scheme as has been adopted

by the HON, although the emissions

averaging provisions of the proposed

rule are entirely contained in the

proposed rule instead of referring to the

subpart G emissions averaging

provisions. Under the proposed rule,

emissions averaging would be allowed

among five collocated existing emission

points belonging to the same

subcategory. This number may be

increased by three additional points if

pollution prevention measures are to be

used to control emission points to be

included in the average. However,

emissions from batch process vents and

equipment leaks would not be allowed

to be averaged. The owner or operator

must demonstrate that the averaging

scheme will not result in greater hazard

or risk relative to strict compliance with

the standards in the absence of

averaging.

The EPA specifically requests

comments on the selection of the limit

of (5, or 8 if pollution prevention

measures are used) emission points to

be allowed per subcategory for purposes

of averaging in this proposed rule. Will

this limit preclude known opportunities

within real facilities to generate costeffective credits within a category or

subcategory? Any comments on this

need to address specifics on the

emission and cost quantities computed,

with detailed calculations and

references to show how these quantities

were determined.

The EPA is including emissions from

process contact cooling towers and

vacuum system wastewater at existing

PET facilities in the emissions averaging

procedures for the proposed rule. As

noted earlier, the proposed standards

would (1) prohibit existing PET

facilities from using cooling tower water

in the contact condensers associated

with vacuum systems, and (2) would

require the control of any wastewater

stream generated by the vacuum system

containing organic HAP listed on Table

9 of the wastewater provisions in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16105

subpart G of this part to the level

required for a Group 1 process

wastewater stream. Control is required

regardless of the organic HAP

concentration and flowrate of the

stream.

The proposed prohibition for cooling

tower water would eliminate organic

HAP emissions from the process contact

cooling towers since the cooling tower

water would not come in contact with

the organic HAP generated by the

process. If an owner or operator elected

to comply with the proposed emissions

averaging procedures, the owner or

operator could elect not to eliminate

process contact cooling tower water

from the vacuum system. This would

create a debit; that is, organic HAP

emissions would now occur from the

cooling tower, whereas, under the

proposed rule, no organic HAP

emissions would occur. Thus, the

proposed emissions averaging

procedures only include process contact

cooling towers in the equation for the

calculation of debits. On the other hand,

since the proposed standard would

eliminate organic HAP emissions from

the cooling tower, there is no

opportunity for an owner or operator to

control cooling tower emissions to a

level more stringent than the proposed

rule. Thus, the proposed emissions

averaging procedures for calculating

credits do not include process contact

cooling towers. The EPA is specifically

requesting information on

methodologies which could be used to

estimate emissions from process contact

cooling towers.

The EPA requests comments on all

aspects of the implementation of

emissions averaging and on ways that

the emissions averaging provisions can

be made more flexible without reducing

the emission reduction. A discussion of

the rationale for the proposed emissions

averaging provisions is contained in

Chapter 4 of the Basis and Purpose

Document.

G. Compliance and Performance Test

Provisions and Monitoring

Requirements

Compliance and performance test

provisions and monitoring requirements

contained in today’s proposed rule are

very similar to those found in the HON

(subpart G of part 63). Each type of

emission point is discussed briefly in

the paragraphs below. Also, significant

differences from the parameter

monitoring requirements found in

subpart G are discussed.

1. Continuous Process Vents

The proposed regulations for process

vents from continuous unit operations

(continuous process vents) require the

owner or operator to either calculate a

TRE index value to determine whether

each continuous process vent is a Group

1 or Group 2 vent, or the owner or

operator can elect to comply with the

control requirements without

calculating the TRE index. The TRE

index value is determined after the last

recovery device in the process or prior

to venting to the atmosphere. The TRE

calculation involves an emissions test or

engineering assessment and use of the

TRE equations in the proposed rule.

Performance test provisions are

included for Group 1 continuous

process vents to verify that the control

device achieves the required

performance. Monitoring provisions

necessary to demonstrate compliance

are also included in the proposed rule.

Compliance provisions for continuous

process vents at polystyrene and PET

facilities are included in the proposed

rule. For owners or operators electing to

comply with a kg TOC/Mg of product

limit, procedures to demonstrate

compliance are provided. Also,

procedures are included in the proposed

rule to demonstrate compliance with the

requirement to reduce overall process

vent emissions (continuous and batch)

by 84 percent for new SAN, batch

facilities.

2. Batch Process Vents

Similar to the provisions for

continuous process vents, there is a

procedure for determining which batch

process vents are Group 1 and which are

Group 2. This procedure is based on

annual emissions and annual average

flowrate of the batch process vent.

Equations for estimating annual

emissions and annual average flowrates

are provided in the proposed rule.

Performance test provisions are

included for Group 1 batch process

vents to verify that the control or

recovery device achieves the required

performance. Monitoring provisions

necessary to demonstrate compliance

are also included in the proposed rule.

For Group 2 batch process vents, the

proposed rule requires owners and

operators to establish a batch cycle

limitation. The batch cycle limitation

limits the number of batch cycles that

can be accomplished for a given batch

unit operation per year (i.e., for the

operations that feed a single batch

process vent). This enforceable

limitation ensures that a Group 2 batch

process vent does not become a Group

1 batch process vent as a result of

running more batches than anticipated

when the group determination was

made. The determination of the batch

cycle limitation is not tied to any

previous production amounts. An

affected source may set the batch cycle

limitation at any level it desires as long

as the batch process vent remains a

Group 2 batch process vent.

Alternatively the proposed rule would

allow owners and operators to declare

any Group 2 batch process vent to be a

Group 1 batch process vent. In such

cases, control of the batch process vent

is required.

As described earlier, procedures are

included in the proposed rule to

demonstrate compliance with the

requirement to reduce overall process

vent emissions (continuous and batch)

by 84 percent for new SAN, batch

facilities.

3. Storage Vessels

Monitoring and compliance

provisions include periodic visual

inspections of vessels, roof seals, and

fittings, as well as internal inspections.

If a control device is used, the owner or

operator must identify the appropriate

monitoring procedures to be followed in

order to demonstrate compliance.

Monitoring parameters and procedures

for many of the control devices likely to

be used are already identified in other

parts of the proposed rule. Reports and

records of inspections, repairs, and

other information necessary to

determine compliance are also required

by the proposed rule.

4. Wastewater

For demonstrating compliance with

the various requirements, the proposed

rule allows the owners or operators to

either conduct performance tests or to

document compliance using engineering

calculations. Appropriate compliance

and monitoring provisions are included

in the regulation.

5. Equipment Leaks

The proposed rule retains the use of

Method 21 to detect leaks. Method 21

requires a portable organic vapor

analyzer to monitor for leaks from

equipment in use. A ‘‘leak’’ is a

concentration specified in the regulation

for the type of equipment being

monitored and is based on the

instrument response to methane (the

calibration gas) in air. The observed

screening value may require adjustment

for response factor relative to methane

if the weighted response factor of the

stream exceeds a specified multiplier.

The proposed rule requires the use of

Method 18 to determine the organic

content of a process stream. Test

procedures using either a gas or a liquid

for pressure testing the batch system are

specified to test for leaks.
16106 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

6. Heat Exchange Systems

Monitoring of cooling water is

required to detect leaks in non-contact

heat exchange systems. If a leak is

detected, the heat exchange system must

be repaired.

7. Process Contact Cooling Towers

Owners and operators of affected

sources subject to these provisions are

required to indicate in their

Implementation Plan and Notification of

Compliance Status reports that cooling

tower water will not be used in contact

condensers associated with vacuum

systems.

8. Continuous Parameter Monitoring

When compared to the HON, the

proposed rule contains two significant

differences related to continuous

parameter monitoring. First, the

proposed rule does not allow any

excused excursions. The proposed rule,

as did subpart G, requires at least 75

percent of monitoring data to constitute

a valid days worth of data for

continuous and batch process vents.

Failure to have a valid day’s worth of

monitoring data is considered an

excursion. The criteria for determining

a valid day’s or hour’s worth of data are

provided in the proposed rule. Second,

the procedure for determining the

parameter monitoring level for

continuous and batch process vents is

both more specific and restrictive than

the procedure in subpart G because it

relies exclusively on performance tests.

H. Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements

The general recordkeeping and

reporting requirements of this subpart

are very similar to those found in

subpart G of 40 CFR part 63. The

proposed rule also relies on the

provisions of subpart A of 40 CFR part

63. A table included in the proposed

rule designates which sections of

subpart A apply to the proposed rule.

Specific recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for each type of emission

point are also included in the proposed

rule.

The proposed rule requires sources to

keep records and submit reports of

information necessary to document

compliance. Records must be kept for 5

years. The following six types of reports

must be submitted to the Administrator

as appropriate: (1) Initial Notification,

(2) Implementation Plan (if an operating

permit application has not been

submitted or, for new sources, an

application for approval of construction

or reconstruction), (3) Emissions

Averaging Plan, (4) Notification of

Compliance Status, (5) Periodic Reports,

and (6) other reports. The requirements

for each of the six types of reports are

summarized below. In addition, sources

complying with the equipment leak

requirements contained in subpart H

must follow the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements of subpart H.

1. Initial Notification

The Initial Notification is due 120

days after the date of promulgation for

existing sources. For new sources, it is

due 180 days before commencement of

construction or reconstruction, or 45

days after promulgation, whichever is

later. The notification must list the

thermoplastic processes that are subject

to the proposed rule, and which

provisions may apply (e.g., continuous

process vents, batch process vents,

storage vessels, wastewater, and/or

equipment leak provisions). A detailed

identification of emission points is not

necessary for the Initial Notification.

The notification, however, must include

a statement of whether the affected

source expects that it can achieve

compliance by the specified compliance

date.

2. Implementation Plan

The Implementation Plan details how

the affected source plans to comply. An

Implementation Plan would be required

only for affected sources that have not

yet submitted an operating permit

application or for new sources that have

not yet submitted the same information

as part of their application for approval

of construction or reconstruction.

The Implementation Plan would be

due 12 months prior to the date of

compliance. For new sources,

Implementation Plans would be

submitted with the Notification of

Compliance Status.

The information in the

Implementation Plan should be

incorporated into the affected source’s

operating permit application. The terms

and conditions of the plan, as approved

by the permit authority, would then be

incorporated into the operating permit.

The Implementation Plan would

include a list of emission points subject

to the continuous process vents, batch

process vents, storage vessels,

wastewater, heat exchange systems,

process contact cooling towers, and

equipment leak provisions and, as

applicable, whether each emission point

(e.g., storage vessel or process vent) is

Group 1 or Group 2. The control

technology or method of compliance

planned for each Group 1 emission

point must be specified.

The plan must also certify that

appropriate testing, monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping will be

done for each Group 1 emission point.

If an affected source requests approval

to monitor a unique parameter, a

rationale must be included.

3. Emissions Averaging Plan

The Emissions Averaging Plan would

be due 18 months prior to the date of

compliance. New sources are not

allowed to comply through the use of

emissions averaging.

For points included in emissions

averaging, the Emissions Averaging Plan

would include: an identification of all

points in the average and whether they

are Group 1 or Group 2 points; the

specific control technique or pollution

prevention measure that will be applied

to each point; the control efficiency for

each control used in the average; the

projected credit or debit generated by

each point; and the overall expected

credits and debits. The plan must

include a demonstration that the

emissions averaging scheme will not

result in greater hazard or risk than if

the emission points would comply with

the standards in the absence of

averaging. The plan must also certify

that the same types of testing,

monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping that are required by the

proposed rule for Group 1 points will be

done for all points (both Group 1 and

Group 2) included in an emissions

average. If an affected source requests

approval to monitor a unique parameter

or use a unique recordkeeping and

reporting system, a rationale must be

included in the Emissions Averaging

Plan.

4. Notification of Compliance Status

The Notification of Compliance Status

would be required 150 days after the

affected source’s compliance date. It

contains the information for Group 1

emission points and for all emission

points in emissions averages, necessary

to demonstrate that compliance has

been achieved. Such information

includes, but is not limited to, the

results of any performance tests for

continuous and/or batch process vents

and wastewater emission points; one

complete test report for each test

method used for a particular kind of

emission point; TRE determinations for

continuous process vents; group

determinations for batch process vents;

design analyses for storage vessels and

wastewater emission points; monitored

parameter levels for each emission point

and supporting data for the designated

level; and values of all parameters used

to calculate emission credits and debits

for emissions averaging.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16107

5. Periodic Reports

Generally, Periodic Reports would be

submitted semiannually. However, there

are two exceptions. First, quarterly

reports must be submitted for all points

included in an emissions average.

Second, if monitoring results show that

the parameter values for an emission

point are above the maximum or below

the minimum established levels for

more than 1 percent of the operating

time in a reporting period, or the

monitoring system is out of service for

more than 5 percent of the time, the

regulatory authority may request that

the owner or operator submit quarterly

reports for that emission point. After 1

year, semiannual reporting can be

resumed, unless the regulatory authority

requests continuation of quarterly

reports.

All Periodic Reports would include

information required to be reported

under the recordkeeping and reporting

provisions for each emission point. For

emission points involved in emissions

averages, the report would include the

results of the calculations of credits and

debits for each month and for the

quarter. For continuously monitored

parameters, the data on those periods

when the parameters are above the

maximum or below the minimum

established levels are included in the

reports. Periodic Reports would also

include results of any performance tests

conducted during the reporting period

and instances when required

inspections revealed problems.

Additional information the affected

source is required to report under its

operating permit or Implementation

Plan would also be described in

Periodic Reports.

6. Other Reports

Other reports required under the

proposed rule include: reports of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; process

changes that change the compliance

status of process vents; and requests for

extensions of repair and notifications of

inspections for storage vessels and

wastewater.

In addition, quarterly reporting of the

number of batch cycles accomplished

for Group 2 batch process vents is

required. Every fourth quarterly report

would be required to include the total

batch cycles accomplished during the

previous 12 months, and a statement

whether the owner or operator is in

compliance with the batch cycle

limitation.

V. Solicitation of Comments

The Administrator welcomes

comments from interested persons on

any aspect of the proposed rule, and on

any statement in the preamble or the

referenced supporting documents. The

proposed rule was developed on the

basis of information available. The

Administrator is specifically requesting

factual information that may support

either the approach taken in the

proposed standards or an alternate

approach. To receive proper

consideration, documentation or data

should be provided.

Specifically, the EPA is requesting

comments and data on several aspects of

the proposed rule. First, the EPA solicits

comments and data on the technical

feasibility and costs for emission control

techniques for the vacuum system and

associated process contact cooling

towers used in PET production as

described in Section IV.F.5 of this

preamble and in the Basis and Purpose

Document, Chapter 6. Second, the EPA

solicits comments on several aspects of

the emissions averaging provisions as

described in Section IV.F.6 of this

preamble and in the Basis and Purpose

Document, Chapter 4. The emissions

averaging provisions in this proposed

rule are modeled after those in the HON.

The EPA is interested in comments on

all aspects, but is especially interested

in comments on the limitation of the

number of emission points allowed in

an average and on ways that the

implementation of emissions averaging

can be made more flexible without

reducing the emission reduction. Third,

the EPA solicits comments related to the

use of subpart DDD emission limits and

the proposed modification to subpart

DDD. Fourth, and finally, in some

instances, the EPA has required control

more stringent than that required by the

MACT floor. In these instances, the EPA

has judged the impacts to be reasonable.

The EPA specifically solicits comments

on these decisions.

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

Cost, and Economic Impacts

This section presents the air, non-air

environmental (water and solid waste),

energy, cost, and economic impacts

resulting from the control of organic

HAP emissions under this rule.

A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP

The proposed rule would affect ABS,

SAN, MABS, MBS, polystyrene, PET,

and nitrile facilities that are major

sources in themselves, or that are

located at a major source. Based on

available information, all of the facilities

at which these thermoplastics are

produced were judged to be major

sources for the purpose of developing

these standards. (Final determination of

major source status occurs as part of the

compliance determination process

undertaken by each individual source.)

Impacts are presented relative to a

baseline reflecting the level of control in

the absence of the rule. The current

level of control was well understood

because emissions and control data

were collected on each facility included

in the analysis. The impacts estimates

were determined for both existing

facilities and new facilities (i.e., those

that are expected to begin operation

through 1999).

The expected growth rate in each of

the seven source categories was

analyzed (see Docket No. A–92–45,

Category II–B) and the SID. Based on

this analysis, the following average

annual growth rates (percent per year)

through 1999 were estimated:

• ABS—4 percent.

• SAN—4 percent.

• MABS—3 percent.

• MBS—3 percent.

• Polystyrene—3 percent.

• PET—10 percent for bottle-grade

resins and 4 percent for other PET

resins.

• Nitrile—3 percent.

The impacts for existing sources were

estimated by bringing each facility’s

control level up to the proposed

standards. For new sources, impacts

were based on identifying the number of

new facilities required to meet the

expected growth within the source

category, identifying the types of

facilities (e.g., batch versus continuous)

that would be built, and then selecting

a subset of the existing facilities to

represent the expected growth. The

impacts on these ‘‘new’’ facilities were

determined by applying the proposed

standards for new sources to the

selected subset of facilities assuming the

existing level of control. This

methodology is discussed in detail in

Docket No. A–92–45, Category II–B and

the SID.

B. Primary Air Impacts

The proposed standards are estimated

to reduce organic HAP emissions from

all existing sources by 11,750 Mg/yr

from a baseline level of 24,780 Mg/yr.

This is a 47 percent reduction. For new

facilities, the proposed standards are

estimated to reduce organic HAP

emissions by 7,395 Mg/yr from a

baseline level of 14,920 Mg/yr, for a 50

percent reduction. Table 11 summarizes

the organic HAP emission reductions for

each individual subcategory.
16108 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 11.—Organic HAP Emissions and Emission Reductions

Subcategory

Existing sources New sources

Baseline,

Mg/yr

Emission

reduction,

Mg/yr

Percent

reduction

Baseline,

Mg/yr

Emission

Reduction,

Mg/yr

Percent

reduction

ABS, continuous mass ..................................................... 240 190 80% 95 87 92%

ABS, continuous emulsion a ............................................. 1,110 >180 >16% 400 >115 >29%

ABS, batch emulsion ........................................................ 500 56 11% 35 15 43%

ABS, batch suspension .................................................... 15 5 33% 13 5 38%

ABS, latex ......................................................................... 3 2 67% — — —

SAN, continuous ............................................................... 110 65 60% 40 25 63%

SAN, batch ....................................................................... 35 13 37% 20 6 30%

ASA/AMSAN ..................................................................... 100 94 94% — — —

MABSa .............................................................................. 86 >38 >44% — — —

MBS .................................................................................. 190 130 68% 20 16 80%

Polystyrene, continuous ................................................... 1,440 1,060 74% 330 240 73%

Polystyrene, batch ............................................................ 190 130 68% — — —

Expandable polystyrene ................................................... 450 92 20% — — —

PET-TPA, continuous ....................................................... 6,090 2,400 40% 6,090 2,200 36%

PET-TPA, batch a .............................................................. 1,310 >6 >1% 1,310 >6 >1%

PET-DMT, continuous ...................................................... 4,480 2,330 52% 3,190 1,810 57%

PET-DMT, batch ............................................................... 8,400 4,950 59% 3,380 2,870 85%

Nitrile ................................................................................. 30 10 33% — — —

Totals b ................................................................... 24,780 11,750 47% 14,920 7,395 50%

—No new growth projected, therefore no impacts expected. a A portion of the emission reductions for this subcategory are confidential business information.

b Total values are affected by the subcategories for which some data are confidential business information.

C. Non-Air Impacts

The proposed standards are not

expected to generate any adverse water

impacts. Depending on the methods

selected to comply with the proposed

prohibition of cooling tower water in

contact condensers, the amount of

wastewater generated at PET facilities

could decrease.

The proposed standards are not

expected to increase the generation of

solid waste at any Group IV

thermoplastic facility.

D. Energy Impacts

Energy impacts include increased

energy use (fuel) for the operation of

control equipment, energy credits

attributable to the prevention of organic

HAP emissions from equipment leaks,

and emissions of particulates, sulfur

dioxides (SOx), and nitrogen oxide

(NOx) (secondary air impacts)

associated with increased energy use.

Under today’s proposed rule, energy use

is expected to increase by

approximately 30,000 barrels of oil per

year for existing sources and 44,000 for

new sources. The emissions of

secondary air pollutants associated with

this energy increase are 70 Mg/yr for

existing sources and 80 Mg/yr for new

sources. At the same time, energy

credits attributable to the prevention of

organic HAP emissions from equipment

leaks are approximately 17,000 barrels

of oil per year for existing sources and

8,000 for new sources. This results in a

net increase of approximately 13,000

barrels of oil per year for existing

sources and 36,000 for new sources.

These figures are related to the control

of process vents, wastewater operations,

and equipment leaks. Energy impacts

related to storage vessels were not

estimated since many storage vessels

would be controlled through the use of

internal floating roofs which do not

have any associated energy impacts.

Further, the estimates above do not

include the projected energy savings

associated with control of emissions

from process contact cooling towers and

vacuum system wastewater associated

with the manufacture of PET. The

majority of existing vacuum systems are

operated with steam jets, which are very

energy intensive. The precise affect of

the proposed rule on the use of steam

jets cannot be predicted with accuracy.

However, it is anticipated by the EPA

that compliance with the proposed rule

will, in almost all cases, decrease the

energy demand of the vacuum systems.

Given the relatively small energy

impacts projected for the control of

process vents, wastewater operations,

and equipment leaks and the projected

energy savings associated with control

of vacuum system air emissions, the

EPA has judged the energy impacts

associated with today’s proposed rule to

be acceptable.

E. Cost Impacts

Cost impacts include the capital costs

of new control equipment, the cost of

energy (supplemental fuel, steam, and

electricity) required to operate control

equipment, operation and maintenance

costs, and the cost savings generated by

reducing the loss of valuable product in

the form of emissions. Also, cost

impacts include the costs of monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting associated

with the proposed standards. Average

cost effectiveness ($/Mg of pollutant

removed) is also presented as part of

cost impacts and is determined by

dividing the annual cost by the annual

emission reduction. Table 12 presents

the estimated capital and annual costs

and average cost effectiveness by

subcategory.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16109

TABLE 12.—SUMMARY OF COST IMPACTS

Subcategory

Existing sources New sources

Total capital

cost, $1000

Total annual

costs,

$1000/yr

Average

cost-effectiveness

($/Mg)

Total capital

cost, $1000

Total annual

costs,

$1000/yr

Average

cost-Effectiveness

($/Mg)

ABS, continuous mass ..................................................... 210 100 550 150 38 430

ABS, continuous emulsion a .............................................. >3,540 >1,300 <7,160 >3,490 >1,730 <14,970

ABS, batch emulsion ........................................................ 430 310 5,550 18 14 960

ABS, batch suspension .................................................... 28 19 3,570 28 19 3,760

ABS, latex ......................................................................... 0.5 ¥0.5 ¥240 — — —

SAN, continuous ............................................................... 450 160 2,520 180 38 1,490

SAN, batch ....................................................................... 80 33 2,520 1 ¥1.3 ¥210

ASA/AMSAN ..................................................................... 550 200 2,150 — — —

MABSa .............................................................................. 90 >¥2 >¥50 — — —

MBS .................................................................................. 550 360 2,720 440 234 14,200

Polystyrene, continuous ................................................... 770 280 260 200 90 350

Polystyrene, batch ............................................................ 300 160 1,270 — — —

Expandable polystyrene ................................................... 110 50 540 — — —

PET-TPA, continuous ....................................................... 40,790 2,970 1,230 2,160 ¥3,926 ¥1,770

PET-TPA, batch a .............................................................. >30 >18 <3,180 >30 >18 <3,180

PET-DMT, continuous ...................................................... 28,250 3,010 1,300 2,200 ¥970 ¥540

PET-DMT, batch ............................................................... 22,080 3,360 680 1,440 ¥38 ¥13

Nitrile ................................................................................. 9 7 660 — — —

Totals b ................................................................... 98,270 12,330 1,050 10,340 ¥2,750 ¥370

—No new growth projected, therefore no impacts expected. aA portion of the costs and/or emission reductions for this subcategory are confidential business information.

bTotal values are affected by the subcategories for which some data are confidential business information.

Under the proposed rule, it is

estimated that total capital costs for

existing sources would be $98 million

(1989 dollars), and total annual costs

would by $12.3 million (1989 dollars)

per year. It is expected that the actual

compliance cost impacts of the

proposed rule would be less than

presented because of the potential to use

common control devices, upgrade

existing control devices, use other less

expensive control technologies,

implement pollution prevention

technologies, or use emissions

averaging. Since the effect of such

practices is highly site-specific and data

were unavailable to estimate how often

the lower cost compliance practices

could be utilized, it is not possible to

quantify the amount by which actual

compliance costs would be reduced.

F. Economic Impacts

The economic impact analysis for the

selected regulatory alternatives shows

that the estimated price increases for the

affected chemicals range from 0.1

percent for nitrile to 2.8 percent for

SAN. Estimated decreases in output

range from 0.1 percent for polystyrene

to 4.6 percent for SAN. Net annual

exports (exports minus imports) are

predicted to decrease by an average of

2.5 percent.

As many as five PET facilities and one

ABS facility are at risk of discontinuing

PET and ABS production, respectively,

due to the burden of compliance with

the standard. This does not mean that

the facilities affected face the risk of

closure. The facilities affected will

continue to produce other chemicals

whose processes are not affected by this

standard.

Three assumptions in the analysis

likely lead to an overestimate of the

number of facilities at risk of

discontinuing production of affected

chemicals. First, the economic analysis

model assumes that all PET and ABS

facilities compete in a national market,

though in reality some facilities may be

protected from some competitors by

regional or local trade barriers.

Second, it is assumed that the

facilities with the highest control cost

per unit of production also have the

highest baseline production costs per

unit. This assumption may not always

be true since the baseline production

costs per unit are not known, and thus

the estimated number of facilities that

would discontinue production of

affected chemicals may be too high.

Third, for the production of PET, the

selected regulatory alternative includes

the control of organic HAP emissions

from the vacuum system and process

contact cooling tower. Control of these

emissions is the highest cost item in the

selected regulatory alternative and is the

biggest contributor to the risk of

facilities discontinuing PET production.

The economic analysis is based on the

use of ethylene glycol jets to control

these emissions. There are a number of

potential control technologies for these

emissions that are expected by the EPA

to have lower costs, but costs for these

control technologies were not

calculated. Ethylene glycol jets are being

used by at least two facilities and data

were available from one facility. The

EPA has and will continue to investigate

other control technologies for control of

these emissions. The EPA invites

comment and data on other control

technologies.

More detailed information concerning

the economic impacts and analysis are

included in the Regulatory Impacts

Analysis document (Docket No. A–92–

45, Category II–B).

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to discuss the proposed

standard in accordance with section

307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act. Persons

wishing to make oral presentation on

the proposed standards for ABS, SAN,

MABS, MBS, polystyrene, PET, and

nitrile production should contact the

EPA at the address given in the

ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

Oral presentations will be limited to 15

minutes each. Any member of the

public may file a written statement

before, during, or within 30 days after

the hearing. Written statements should

be addressed to the Air Docket Section

address given in the ADDRESSES section
16110 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

of this preamble and should refer to

Docket No. A–92–45.

A verbatim transcript of the hearing

and written statements will be available

for public inspection and copying

during normal working hours at the

EPA’s Air Docket Section in

Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES section

of this preamble).

B. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to or otherwise considered by

the EPA in the development of the

proposed rule. The principal purposes

of the docket are:

(1) To allow interested parties to

readily identify and locate documents

so that they can intelligently and

effectively participate in the rulemaking

process; and

(2) To serve as the record in case of

judicial review (except for interagency

review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A)).

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The 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.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive

Order, the OMB has notified the EPA

that it considers this a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of the Executive Order. The EPA

submitted this action to the OMB for

review. Changes made in response to

suggestions or recommendations from

the OMB were documented and

included in the public record.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order

12875, we have involved State, local,

and tribal governments in the

development of this rule. These

governments are not directly impacted

by the rule; i.e. they are not required to

purchase control systems to meet the

requirements of the rule. However, they

will be required to implement the rule;

e.g. incorporate the rule into permits

and enforce the rule. They will collect

permit fees which will be used to offset

the resource burden of implementing

the rule. Two representatives of the

State governments have been members

of the EPA Work Group developing the

rule. The Work Group has met

numerous times, and comments have

been solicited from the Work Group

members, including the State

representatives. Their comments have

been carefully considered in the rule

development. In addition, all States are

encouraged to comment on this

proposed rule during the public

comment period, and the EPA intends

to fully consider these comments in the

final rulemaking.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the OMB

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information

collection request (ICR) document has

been prepared by the EPA (ICR No.

1737.01), and a copy may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy

Branch, EPA, 401 M Street SW (2136),

Washington, DC 20460, or by calling

(202) 260–2740. The public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average 938 hours per

response per year, including time for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection

of information.

Send comments regarding the burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to

Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136,

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street SW, Washington, DC

20503, marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer

for EPA.’’ The final rule will respond to

any OMB or public comments on the

information collection requirements

contained in this proposal.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (or

RFA, Public Law 96–354, September 19,

1980) requires Federal agencies to give

special consideration to the impact of

regulation on small businesses. The

RFA specifies that a final regulatory

flexibility analysis must be prepared if

a proposed regulation will have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. To

determine whether a final RFA is

required, a screening analysis, otherwise

known as an initial RFA, is necessary.

Regulatory impacts are considered

significant if:

(1) Annual compliance costs increase

total costs of production by more than

5 percent, or

(2) Annual compliance costs as a

percent of sales are at least 20 percent

(percentage points) higher for small

entities, or

(3) Capital cost of compliance

represent a significant portion of capital

available to small entities, or

(4) The requirements of the regulation

are likely to result in closures of small

entities.

A ‘‘substantial number’’ of small

entities is generally considered to be

more than 20 percent of the small

entities in the affected industry.

Consistent with Small Business

Administration (SBA) size standards, a

thermoplastic producing firm is

classified as a small entity if it has less

than 750 employees, and is unaffiliated

with a larger entity. Based upon this

criterion, only one firm employs less

than 750 workers.

Data were available to examine two of

the criteria: the potential for closure,

and a comparison of compliance costs

as a percentage of sales.

For criterion one, the affected source

is not expected to fall at risk of closure

from the regulation, thus this criterion

is not met. Also, the compliance costs

were only 0.001 percent of total sales for

the affected source, and this does not

meet criterion two.

The affected firm is an MBS producer,

and since the economics analysis lead to

the conclusion that no MBS facilities are

at risk of closure, this criterion is not

met. Also, the compliance costs were

only 0.001 percent of total sales for the

firm.

In conclusion, and pursuant to section

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator

certifies that this rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The basis for the certification is that the

economic impacts for small entities do

not meet or exceed the criteria in the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16111

Guidelines to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1980, as shown above. Further

information on the initial RFA is

available in the background information

package (see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section near the beginning

of this preamble).

G. Miscellaneous

In accordance with section 117 of the

Act, publication of this proposal was

preceded by consultation with

appropriate advisory committees,

independent experts, and Federal

departments and agencies. The

Administrator will welcome comments

on all aspects of the proposed

regulation, including health, economic

and technical issues, and on the

proposed test methods.

This regulation will be reviewed 8

years from the date of promulgation.

This review will include an assessment

of such factors as evaluation of the

residual health and environmental risks,

any overlap with other programs, the

existence of alternative methods,

enforceability, improvements in

emission control technology and health

data, and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 15, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7066 Filed 3–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 3F4233/P609; FRL–4944–7]

RIN 2070–AC18

Bromoxynil; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes a

tolerance for residues of the herbicide

bromoxynil (3,5-dibromo-4-

hydroxybenzonitrile), resulting from the

application of its octanoic and

heptanoic acid esters. The proposal

would amend the tolerance in or on the

raw agricultural commodity (RAC)

cottonseed (transgenic BXN varieties

only) at 0.04 part per million (ppm).

Rhone-Poulenc AG Co. submitted

petitions requesting EPA to establish the

maximum permissible residue of the

herbicide in or on transgenic

cottonseed.

DATES: Written comments, identified by

the document control number, [PP

3F4233/P609], must be received on or

before April 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit comments

to: Public Docket and Freedom of

Information Section, Field Operations

Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. In person bring comments to:

Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

(CBI). Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

A copy of the comment that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

may be disclosed publicly by EPA

without prior notice. All written

comments will be available for public

inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address

given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Robert J. Taylor, Product Manager

(PM) 25, Registration Division (7505C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M. St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location and telephone number:

Rm., 241, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-

6800; e-mail:

Taylor.Robert@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

issued a notice, published in the

Federal Register of October 21, 1993 (58

FR 54354), announcing that the RhonePoulenc AG Co., P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W.

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle

Park, NC 27709, had submitted a

pesticide petition, PP 3F4233, to EPA

proposing to amend 40 CFR 180.324 by

establishing a regulation to permit the

residues of the herbicide bromoxynil

(3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile)

resulting from the application of its

octanoic and heptanoic acid esters in or

on the raw agricultural commodity

(RAC) transgenic cottonseed at 0.04

ppm. There were no comments or

requests for referral to an advisory

committee received in response to the

notice of filing.

The data submitted in the petition

and other relevant material have been

evaluated. The toxicology data listed

below were considered in support of

this tolerance. Based on bridging

studies, the Agency has determined that

bromoxynil octanoate and bromoxynil

heptanoate are toxicologically

equivalent. For this reason, studies

using the bromoxynil phenol are

accepted in fulfillment of studies

required for bromoxynil octanoate and

bromoxynil heptanoate.

Phenol technical-grade bromoxynil

1. Several acute toxicology studies

were performed, placing technical-grade

bromoxynil in toxicity Category II.

2. An acute oral toxicity study in rats

resulted in LD50 = 81 mg/kg (males) and

LD50 = 93 mg/kg (females).

3. A 2-year combined feeding/

carcinogenicity study was conducted

with rats administered (oral) dosages of

0, 60, 190, or 600 ppm (0, 2.6, 8.2, or

28 mg/kg/day in males; 0, 3.3, 11.0, or

41 mg/kg/day in females) bromoxynil

phenol in the diet. In males the noobserved-effect-level (NOEL) for

systemic toxicity is 2.6 mg/kg/day, and

the lowest-effect-level (LEL) is 8.2 mg/

kg/day. In females, the NOEL is 3.3 mg/

kg/day, and the lowest-effect-level (LEL)

is 11.0 mg/kg/day. This study did not

demonstrate any increase in tumor

incidences in either male or female rats.

This study has not been considered by

the RfD committee. The RfD was set

based on the NOEL from the

supplementary rat study (see item #4).

4. A 2-year combined feeding/

carcinogenicity study was conducted

with rats administered bromoxynil

phenol in the diet at dose levels of 0, 10,

30, or 100 ppm (0, 0.5, 1.5, or 5 mg/kg/

day). In both males and females, the

NOEL and LOEL for systemic toxicity

was 5 mg/kg/day and >5 mg/kg/day,

respectively. At the highest dose tested,

increased liver weights were observed at

12 months, but not at 24 months. This

study was considered negative for

carcinogenicity. This study is

considered supplementary. The RfD is

based on this study and an uncertainty

factor of 300 rather than 100 was used

since the study is supplementary.

5. A 1-year oral study was conducted

with dogs administered bromoxynil

phenol at dose levels of 0, 0.1, 0.3, 1.5,

or 7.5 mg/kg/day in capsules. The NOEL

is 0.3 mg/kg/day and the LEL is 1.5 mg/

kg/day in both males and females.

6. An 18-month carcinogenicity study

was conducted with mice administered

bromoxynil phenol at dose levels of 0,

10, 30, or 100 ppm (0, 1.3, 3.9, or 13 mg/

kg/day) in the diet. For males, doserelated increases in hyperplastic

nodules and liver adenomas/carcinomas

were observed which were statistically

significant at the 13-mg/kg/day dose

level. Increased relative liver weights