[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16090-16111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7066]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 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 [[Page 16092]] 
    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 Resins<SUP>a      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of  
     Source category                Subcategory            facilities in
                                                           subcategory<SUP>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 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>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.                                                  
<SUP>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 
[[Page 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. By-products, 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.'' [[Page 16094]] 

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 deg. C) (-13 deg. 
Fahrenheit (-13 deg. 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                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Affected                          Number of end    Type of vacuum                        
     Process           facility          Viscosity         finishers         producer             Standard      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMT..............  Material          Low.............  ................  ................  0.018 kg TOC/Mg of   
                    Recovery.                                                               product OR limit    
                                                                                            temperature to +37  
                                                                                            deg.F from each     
                                                                                            final condenser in  
                                                                                            the material        
                                                                                            recovery section.   
                                     High............  Single..........  ................  (same as above).     
                                                       Multiple........  ................  (same as above).     
DMT..............  Poly- merization  Low.............  ................  Not steam jets..  0.02 kg TOC/Mg of    
                    Reaction.                                                               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     Low.............  ................  ................  0.04 kg TOC/Mg of    
                    Preparation.                                                            product.            
                                     High............  Single..........  ................  (same as above).     
[[Page 16095]]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                
                                     ................  Multiple........  ................  (same as above).     
TPA..............  Polymerization    Low.............  ................  Not steam jets..  0.02 kg TOC/Mg of    
                    Reaction.                                                               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           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Uncontrolled 
                                                          emission rate,
     Production process            Process section          kg TOC/Mg   
                                                             product<SUP>a   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poly(ethylene                Material Recovery.........  0.12<SUP>b,c        
 terephthalate), dimethyl    Polymerization Reaction...  1.80<SUP>c,d,e      
 terephthalate process.                                                 
Poly(ethylene                Raw Materials.............  g              
 terephthalate),             Preparation...............  1.80<SUP>c,e,h      
 terephthalic acid process.                                             
                             Polymerization Reaction...  3.92<SUP>c,f,h      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>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.                                                               
<SUP>bEmission rate applies to continuous emissions only.                    
<SUP>cApplies to modified or reconstructed affected facilities only.         
<SUP>dIncludes emissions from the cooling water tower.                       
<SUP>eApplies to a process line producing low viscosity poly(ethylene        
  terephthalate).                                                       
<SUP>ffApplies to a process line producing high viscosity poly(ethylene      
  terephthalate).                                                       
<SUP>gSee footnote h.                                                        
<SUP>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 [[Page 16096]] 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:
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
continuous emulsion process to produce ABS.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
continuous mass process to produce ABS.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
batch emulsion process to produce ABS.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
batch suspension process to produce ABS.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
batch latex process to produce ABS.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility producing 
MABS.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility producing 
MBS.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
continuous process to produce SAN.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
batch process to produce SAN.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility producing 
ASA/AMSAN.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
continuous process to produce polystyrene.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
batch process to produce polystyrene.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility producing 
EPS.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
continuous TPA process to produce PET and any collocated solid state 
processes.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
batch TPA process to produce PET and any collocated solid state 
processes.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
continuous DMT process to produce PET and any collocated solid state 
processes.
    <bullet> All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a 
batch DMT process to produce PET and any collocated solid state 
processes.
    <bullet> 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 [[Page 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 Sec. 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 [[Page 16098]] 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                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Type of emission point                                   
                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Subcategory                                                                                    Heat exchange 
                    Storage vessels      Process vents       Equipment leaks     Wastewater          systems    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABS, continuous    HON.............  HON..................  HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 emulsion.                                                                                       exchange       
                                                                                                 systems.       
ABS, continuous    HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 mass.                                Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      compliant flare.                                                          
ABS, batch         HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 emulsion.                            Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      compliant flare.                                                          
ABS, batch         HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 suspension.                          Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      compliant flare.                                                          
ABS, latex.......  HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
                                      Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      compliant flare.                                                          
MABS.............  HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
                                      Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      compliant flare.                                                          
MBS..............  HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
                                      Vents: MACT Floor                                          exchange       
                                      Batch Process Vents:                                       systems.       
                                      90 percent reduction                                                      
                                      or compliant flare.                                                       
SAN, continuous..  HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
                                      Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      compliant flare.                                                          
SAN, batch.......  HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
                                      Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      compliant flare.                                                          
ASA/AMSAN........  MACT Floor......  MACT Floor...........  HON.............  No control......  HON for heat    
                                                                                                 exchange       
                                                                                                 systems.       
Polystyrene,       MACT Floor......  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 continuous.                          Vents from material                                        exchange       
                                      recovery: same as                                          systems.       
                                      subpart DDD Other                                                         
                                      Continuous Process                                                        
                                      vents: HON Batch                                                          
                                      Process Vents: 90                                                         
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      compliant flare.                                                          
Polystyrene,       HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 batch.                               Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      compliant flare.                                                          
Expandable         HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 polystyrene.                         Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      compliant flare.                                                          
PET-TPA,           HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON for           No cooling tower
 continuous.                          Vents from raw                           wastewater        water allowed  
                                      material preparation                     (including all    in vacuum      
                                      and polymerization                       vacuum system     system contact 
                                      reaction sections:                       generated         condensers. HON
                                      same as subpart DDD                      wastewater).<SUP>a.    for heat       
                                      Other Continuous                                           exchange       
                                      Process vents: HON                                         systems.       
                                      Batch Process Vents:                                                      
                                      90 percent reduction                                                      
                                      or compliant flare.                                                       
PET-TPA, batch -   HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON for           No cooling tower
 DMT, batch.                          Vents: HON Batch                         wastewater        water allowed  
                                      Process Vents: 90                        (including all    in vacuum      
                                      percent reduction or                     vacuum system     system contact 
                                      compliant flare.                         generated         condensers. HON
                                                                               wastewater)..     for heat       
                                                                                                 exchange       
                                                                                                 systems.       
PET-DMT,           HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON for           No cooling tower
 continuous.                          Vents from material                      wastewater        water allowed  
                                      recovery and                             (including all    in vacuum      
                                      polymerization                           vacuum system     system contact 
                                      reaction sections:                       generated         condensers. HON
                                      same as subpart DDD                      wastewater).<SUP>a.    for heat       
                                      Other Continuous                                           exchange       
                                      Process vents: HON                                         systems.       
                                      Batch Process Vents:                                                      
                                      90 percent reduction                                                      
                                      or compliant flare.                                                       
[[Page 16099]]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                
Nitrile..........  MACT Floor......  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
                                      Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      compliant flare.                                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>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                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Type of emission point                                   
                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Subcategory                                                                                    Heat exchange 
                    Storage vessels      Process vents       Equipment leaks     Wastewater          systems    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABS, continuous    HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 emulsion.                            Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      a compliant flare.                                                        
ABS, continuous    Regulatory        Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 mass.              Alternative 2<SUP>a.   Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      a compliant flare.                                                        
ABS. batch         HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 emulsion.                            Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      a compliant flare.                                                        
ABS. batch         HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 suspension.                          Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      a compliant flare.                                                        
ABS, latex.......  HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
                                      Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      a compliant flare.                                                        
MABS.............  HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
                                      Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      a compliant flare.                                                        
MBS..............  HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
                                      Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      a compliant flare.                                                        
SAN, continuous..  MACT Floor......  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
                                      Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      a compliant flare.                                                        
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,       MACT Floor......  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 continuous.                          Vents from material                                        exchange       
                                      recovery: Same as                                          systems.       
                                      subpart DDD Other                                                         
                                      Continuous Process                                                        
                                      Vents: HON Batch                                                          
                                      Process Vents: 90                                                         
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      a compliant flare.                                                        
Polystyrene,       HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 batch.                               Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      a compliant flare.                                                        
Expandable         HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
 polystyrene.                         Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      a compliant flare.                                                        
PET--TPA,          HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON for           No cooling tower
 continuous.                          Vents from raw                           wastewater        water allowed  
                                      material preparation                     (including all    in vacuum      
                                      and polymerization                       vacuum system     system contact 
                                      reaction sections:                       generated         condensers. HON
                                      same as subpart DDD                      wastewater).<SUP>b.    for heat       
                                      Other Continuous                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: HON                                         systems.       
                                      Batch Process Vents:                                                      
                                      90 percent reduction                                                      
                                      or a compliant flare.                                                     
[[Page 16100]]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                
PET--TPA, batch--  HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON for           No cooling tower
 DMT, batch.                          Vents: HON Batch                         wastewater        water allowed  
                                      Process Vents: 90                        (including all    in vacuum      
                                      percent reduction or                     vacuum system     system contact 
                                      a compliant flare.                       generated         condensers. HON
                                                                               wastewater).<SUP>b.    for heat       
                                                                                                 exchange       
                                                                                                 systems.       
PET--DMT,          HON.............  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON for           No cooling tower
 continuous.                          Vents from material                      wastewater        water allowed  
                                      recovery and                             (including all    in vacuum      
                                      polymerization                           vacuum system     system contact 
                                      reaction sections:                       generated         condensers. HON
                                      same as subpart DDD                      wastewater).<SUP>b.    for heat       
                                      Other Continuous                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: HON                                         systems.       
                                      Batch Process Vents:                                                      
                                      90 percent reduction                                                      
                                      or a compliant flare.                                                     
Nitrile..........  MACT Floor......  Continuous Process     HON.............  HON.............  HON for heat    
                                      Vents: HON Batch                                           exchange       
                                      Process Vents: 90                                          systems.       
                                      percent reduction or                                                      
                                      a compliant flare.                                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>aThe proposed standard is more stringent than the MACT floor, which is more stringent than the HON.             
<SUP>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<SUP>a     Level of Control<SUP>b  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All ABS SAN, continuous  Vapor pressure <gr-thn-  If vapor pressure is  
 SAN, batch MABS MBS      eq>0.75 psia and         <11.1 psia:          
 Polystyrene, batch All   capacity <gr-thn-       1. fixed roof and     
 PET Nitrile (except as   eq>40,000 gallons<SUP>c.      internal floating    
 noted below).           Vapor pressure <gr-thn-   roof; or             
                          eq>1.9 psia and         2. external floating  
                          capacity <gr-thn-        roof; or             
                          eq>20,000 gallons<SUP>c.     3. an external        
                                                   floating roof        
                                                   converted to an      
                                                   internal floating    
                                                   roof; or             
                                                  4. a closed vent      
                                                   system and control   
                                                   device.              
                                                  If vapor pressure <gr-
                                                   thn-eq>11.1 psia: a  
                                                   closed vent system   
                                                   and control device<SUP>d  
ASA/AMSAN..............  AMST for capacities <gr- 98 percent reduction. 
                          thn-eq>10,200 gallons.                        
                         Styrene/acrylonitrile    98 percent reduction. 
                          for capacities <gr-thn-                       
                          eq>1,000 gallons.                             
                         Acrylonitrile for        98 percent reduction. 
                          capacities <gr-thn-                           
                          eq>20,000 gallons.                            
                         Any other chemical:....  If vapor pressure is  
                           Vapor pressure <gr-     <11.1 psia:          
                          thn-eq>0.75 psia and    1. fixed roof and     
                          capacity <gr-thn-        internal floating    
                          eq>40,000 gallonsc.      roof; or             
                           Vapor pressure <gr-    2. external floating  
                          thn-eq>1.9 psia and      roof; or             
                          capacity <gr-thn-       3. an external        
                          eq>20,000 gallons<SUP>c.      floating roof        
                                                   converted to an      
                                                   internal floating    
                                                   roof; or             
                                                  4. a closed vent      
                                                   system and control   
                                                   device.              
                                                  If vapor pressure <gr-
                                                   thn-eq>11.1 psia: a  
                                                   closed vent system   
                                                   and control device<SUP>0d 
Nitrile................  Control all              (same as the HON level
                          acrylonitrile storage    of control).         
                          vessels <gr-thn-                              
                          eq>3,500 gallons.                             
Polystyrene, continuous  Vapor pressure 0.28      (same as the HON level
                          psia and capacity <gr-   of control)          
                          thn-eq>20,000 gallons.                        
                         Vapor pressure <gr-thn-                        
                          eq>2.08 psia and                              
                          capacity <gr-thn-                             
                          eq>10,000 but less                            
                          than 20,000 gallons.                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>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.               
<SUP>bRequired for Group 1 storage vessels only.                             
<SUP>cThe applicability criteria for these subcategories are the same as in  
  the HON.                                                              
<SUP>dThe level of control is the same as the HON.                           
KEY: AMST = alpha methyl styrene.                                       


                                                                        
[[Page 16101]]                                                          
          Table 7.--Proposed Standards for New Storage Vessels          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subcategory        Applicability criteria<SUP>a     Level of control<SUP>b  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All ABS (except CM)      Vapor pressure <gr-thn-  If vapor pressure is  
 SAN, batch MABS MBS      eq>0.1 psia and          <11.1 psia:          
 Polystyrene, batch All   capacity <gr-thn-       1. fixed roof and     
 PET Nitrile (except as   eq>40,000 gallons<SUP>c.      internal floating    
 noted below).           Vapor pressure <gr-thn-   roof; or             
                          eq>1.9 psia and         2. external floating  
                          capacity <gr-thn-        roof; or             
                          eq>10,000 gallons<SUP>c.     3. an external        
                                                   floating roof        
                                                   converted to an      
                                                   internal floating    
                                                   roof; or             
                                                  4. a closed vent      
                                                   system and control   
                                                   device.              
                                                  If vapor pressure <gr-
                                                   thn-eq>11.1 psia: a  
                                                   closed vent system   
                                                   and control device<SUP>d. 
ABS, CM................  VP <gr-thn-eq> 1.9 psia  (same as the HON level
                          and capacity <gr-thn-    of control).         
                          eq>10,000 gallons and                         
                          <12,000 gallons.                              
                         Styrene for capacities                         
                          <gr-thn-eq>12,000                             
                          gallons.                                      
                         VP <gr-thn-eq> 0.0782                          
                          psia and <gr-thn-                             
                          eq>12,000 gallons.                            
SAN, continuous........  VP <gr-thn-eq> 0.0735    90 percent reduction. 
                          to <0.1 psia and                              
                          capacity <gr-thn-                             
                          eq>600,000 gallons.                           
                         VP <gr-thn-eq> 0.1 to    (same as the HON level
                          <1.45 psia and <gr-thn-  of control).         
                          eq>40,000 gallons.                            
                         VP <gr-thn-eq> 1.45 to   98 percent reduction. 
                          <14.7 psia and                                
                          capacity <gr-thn-                             
                          eq>8,000 to <40,000                           
                          gallons.                                      
ASA/AMS................  AMST for capacities <gr- 98 percent reduction. 
                          thn-eq>10,200 gallons.                        
                         Styrene/acrylonitrile    98 percent reduction. 
                          for capacities <gr-thn-                       
                          eq>1,000 gallons.                             
                         Acrylonitrile for        98 percent reduction. 
                          capacities <gr-thn-                           
                          eq>20,000 gallons.                            
                         Any other chemical:....  (same as the HON level
                         Vapor pressure <gr-thn-   of control).         
                          eq>0.1 psia and                               
                          capacity <gr-thn-                             
                          eq>40,000 gallons<SUP>c.                           
                         Vapor pressure <gr-thn-                        
                          eq>1.9 psia and                               
                          capacity <gr-thn-                             
                          eq>10,000 gallons<SUP>c.                           
Nitrile................  Control all              (same as the HON level
                          acrylonitrile storage    of control).         
                          vessels <gr-thn-eq>                           
                          3,500 gallons.                                
Polystyrene, continuous  Vapor pressure <gr-thn-  (same as the HON level
                          eq> 0.78 psia and        of control).         
                          capacity <gr-thn-eq>                          
                          29,000 gallons.                               
                         Vapor pressure <gr-thn-                        
                          eq> 0.09 psia and                             
                          capacity <gr-thn-eq>                          
                          12,000 gallons but                            
                          less than 29,000                              
                          gallons.                                      
                         Vapor pressure <gr-thn-                        
                          eq> 1.1 psia and                              
                          capacity <gr-thn-eq>                          
                          5,170 gallons but less                        
                          than 12,000 gallons.                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>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.               
<SUP>bRequired for Group 1 storage vessels only.                             
<SUP>cThe applicability criteria for these subcategories are the same as     
  those in the HON.                                                     
<SUP>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) 
[[Page 16102]] 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).........................  TRE<SUP>a <ls-thn-eq> 1.                                   
                                        MBS.....................................................  TRE<SUP>a <ls-thn-eq> 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 product<SUP>b.                          
                                        PET/DMT, continuous: polymerization reaction............  None. Must meet standard.                             
                                        PET/TPA, continuous: raw material preparation and         None. Must meet standard.                             
                                         polymerization reaction.                                                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Batch Unit Operations.................  All.....................................................       Stream volatility          Flowrate regression   
                                                                                                                                       equation<SUP>c        
                                                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Low.......................  (0.00437) AE--51.6<SUP>d.      
                                                                                                  Moderate..................  (0.00187) AE--14.0<SUP>d.      
                                                                                                  High......................  (0.00081) AE--8.5<SUP>d.       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>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.                                                                                                  
<SUP>bIf emissions from the described process vents are greater than the applicability criteria, control is required.                                        
<SUP>cIf 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.                                                                                                                            
<SUP>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).........................  TRE<SUP>a <ls-thn-eq> 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                None. Must meet standard.                             
                                         polymerization reaction.                                                                                       
                                        PET/TPA, continuous: Raw material preparation and         None. Must meet standard.                             
                                         polymerization reaction.                                                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Batch Unit Operations.................  All (except as specified below).........................       Stream volatility      Flowrate regression       
                                                                                                                               equation<SUP>b                
                                                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Low.......................  (0.00437) AE--51.6<SUP>c.      
                                                                                                  Moderate..................  (0.00187) AE--14.0<SUP>c.      
                                                                                                  High......................  (0.00081) AE--8.5<SUP>c.       
                                        SAN, batch..............................................  None......................  Must meet standard.       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>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.                                                                                                  
<SUP>bIf 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.                                                                                                                            
<SUP>cAE=annual emissions in kilograms per year.                                                                                                             


[[Page 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 Sec. 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 deg.C (-13 deg.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 deg.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 Sec. 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 [[Page 16104]] 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<SUP>ab        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Existing source criteria               New source criteria        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOHAP<SUP>c concentration <gr-thn-eq>     Same as existing criteria          
 10,000 ppmw.                                and                        
        or                           for a subset of organic            
VOHAP<SUP>c concentration <gr-thn-eq>      HAP...VOHAP<SUP>c concentration <gr-thn-
 1,000 ppmw and flow rate <gr-thn-    eq>10 ppmw and flowrate <gr-thn-  
 eq> 10 liters per minute.            eq>0.02 liters per minute.        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a Wastewater streams meeting these criteria are considered Group 1      
  wastewater streams and control is required.                           
<SUP>b There are exemptions for minimal flowrates and concentrations.        
<SUP>c VOHAP=volatile organic HAP.                                           

    The proposed standards require owners and operators to comply with 
the maintenance wastewater requirements in Sec. 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 cost-effective 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 [[Page 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.
[[Page 16106]]

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. [[Page 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 
start-up, 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:
    <bullet> ABS--4 percent.
    <bullet> SAN--4 percent.
    <bullet> MABS--3 percent.
    <bullet> MBS--3 percent.
    <bullet> Polystyrene--3 percent.
    <bullet> PET--10 percent for bottle-grade resins and 4 percent for 
other PET resins.
    <bullet> 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.

                                                                        
<SUP>[[Page 16108]]                                                          
                            Table 11.--Organic HAP Emissions and Emission Reductions                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Existing sources                         New sources             
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subcategory                            Emission                               Emission              
                                     Baseline,    reduction,    Percent     Baseline,    Reduction,    Percent  
                                       Mg/yr        Mg/yr      reduction      Mg/yr        Mg/yr      reduction 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABS, continuous mass..............          240          190          80%           95           87          92%
ABS, continuous emulsion <SUP>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%           --           --           --
MABS<SUP>a.............................           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<SUP>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<SUP>b.....................       24,780       11,750          47%       14,920        7,395         50% 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--No new growth projected, therefore no impacts expected.                                                       
<SUP>a A portion of the emission reductions for this subcategory are confidential business information.              
<SUP>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.

                                                                                                                
<SUP>[[Page 16109]]                                                                                                  
                                       Table 12.--Summary of Cost Impacts                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Existing sources                           New sources              
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Total                                    Total                  
          Subcategory              Total        annual    Average cost-     Total        annual    Average cost-
                                  capital       costs,    effectiveness    capital       costs,    Effectiveness
                                cost, $1000    $1000/yr       ($/Mg)     cost, $1000    $1000/yr       ($/Mg)   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABS, continuous mass..........          210          100           550           150           38           430 
ABS, continuous emulsion<SUP>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            --           --            -- 
MABS<SUP>a.........................           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<SUP>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<SUP>b.................       98,270       12,330         1,050        10,340       -2,750         -370  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--No new growth projected, therefore no impacts expected.                                                       
<SUP>aA portion of the costs and/or emission reductions for this subcategory are confidential business information.  
<SUP>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 [[Page 16110]] 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 [[Page 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