[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76408-76457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29767]
[[Page 76407]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic
Maximum Achievable Control Technology; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 76408]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-6899-9]
RIN 2060-AH68
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes amendments to the ``generic'' maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards to add national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for four additional
source categories: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Carbon Black
Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production. The generic
MACT standards provide a structural framework allowing source
categories with similar emission types and MACT control requirements to
be covered under one subpart, thus promoting regulatory consistency in
NESHAP development. The EPA has identified these four source categories
as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), including cyanide
compounds, acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, carbonyl sulfide, carbon
disulfide, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, toluene, and 2,4 toluene
diisocyanate (TDI). Benzene is a known human carcinogen, and 1,3
butadiene is considered to be a probable human carcinogen. The other
pollutants can cause noncancer health effects in humans. These proposed
standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by
requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting
the application of MACT.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 5, 2001.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by December 26, 2000, a public hearing will be held on
January 5, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate
if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-17, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. All technical comments
pertaining solely to individual source categories should be submitted
to the dockets established for the individual source categories (see
Docket for individual docket numbers). The EPA requests a separate copy
also be sent to Mr. Mark Morris (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
Docket. Docket No. A-97-17 contains supporting information used in
developing the generic MACT standards. Dockets established for each of
the source categories proposed to be assimilated under the generic MACT
standards with this proposal include: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
(Docket No. A-2000-14), Carbon Black Production (Docket No. A-98-10),
Ethylene Production (Docket No. A-98-22), and Spandex Production
(Docket No. A-98-25). These dockets include source category-specific
supporting information. All dockets are located at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, Ground Floor, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed NESHAP, contact the following at the Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone/facsimile/e-mail
Information type Contact Group address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General.......................... Mark Morris.............. Organic Chemicals Group. (919) 541-5416/(919) 541-
3470/ morris.mark
@epa.gov.
Cyanide chemicals manufacturing.. Keith Barnett............ Organic Chemicals Group. (919) 541-5605/(919) 541-
3470/ barnett.keith
@epa.gov.
Carbon black production.......... John Schaefer............ Organic Chemicals Group. (919) 541-0296/(919) 541-
3470/ schaefer.john
@epa.gov.
Ethylene production.............. Warren Johnson........... Organic Chemicals Group. (919) 541-5267/(919) 541-
3470/ johnson.warren
@epa.gov.
Spandex production............... Elaine Manning........... Waste and Chemical (919) 541-5499/(919) 541-
Processes Group. 3470/ manning.elaine
@epa.gov.
Public hearing................... Maria Noell.............. Organic Chemicals Group. (919) 541-5607/(919) 541-
3470/ noell.maria
@epa.gov.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPLLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments
Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
[email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption
problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect
version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All comments and data
submitted in electronic form must note the appropriate docket number
(see ADDRESSES). No confidential business information (CBI) should be
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mark Morris,
c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel
Hill Street, Durham NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information
identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a
submission when it is received by the EPA, the information may be made
available to the public without further notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing
Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to
whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Maria Noell (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 2 days in advance of the public
hearing. Persons
[[Page 76409]]
interested in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Noell to
verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing
will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views,
or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.
Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of the record compiled
by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking
process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of
judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory
text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for
review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air
Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW)
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposed rule is also available on the WWW through the Technology
Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the rule will be
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN
HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action
include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS code SIC code entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial....................... 325188, 325199........... 2819, 2869.............. Producers and
coproducers of hydrogen
cyanide and sodium
cyanide.
325182................... 2895.................... Producers of carbon
black by thermal-
oxidative decomposition
in a closed system,
thermal decomposition
in a cyclic process, or
thermal decomposition
in a continuous
process.
325110................... 2869.................... Producers of ethylene
from refined petroleum
or liquid hydrocarbons.
325222................... 2824.................... Producers of spandex by
reaction spinning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1104 of the
proposed subpart. If you have any questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person(s) listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. Why is the EPA proposing to include today's standards in the
generic MACT standards?
D. What are the proposed amendments to subpart YY and the
subparts referenced by it?
II. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
A. Introduction
B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing
C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing
D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
III. Carbon Black Production
A. Introduction
B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Carbon Black Production
C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Carbon
Black Production
D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
E. Solicitation of Comments
IV. Ethylene Production
A. Introduction
B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Ethylene Production
C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Ethylene
Production
D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
E. Solicitation of Comments
V. Spandex Production
A. Introduction
B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Spandex Production
C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Spandex
Production
D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulator Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601, et seq.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Background
A. What is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The
categories of major sources covered by today's proposed NESHAP were
listed on the following dates: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, July
16, 1992 (57 FR 31576); Carbon Black Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR
28197); Ethylene Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197); and Spandex
Production,
[[Page 76410]]
July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). A major source of HAP is defined as any
stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous
area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit,
considering controls, in the aggregate, 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr)
(10 tons per year (TPY)) or more of any single HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr or
more (25 TPY) of multiple HAP.
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that all major sources achieve the level of control
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in
each source category or subcategory. For new sources, NESHAP cannot be
less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice
by the best-controlled similar source. The NESHAP for existing sources
can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot
be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the
best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (or the best-performing
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost, nonair quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
C. Why is the EPA Proposing to Include Today's Standards in the Generic
MACT Standards?
We are proposing NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing,
Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production
source categories under the generic MACT standards to reduce the
regulatory burden associated with the development of separate
rulemakings. An owner or operator should consult the generic MACT
standards for information on applicability of the standards to their
source, compliance schedules, and standards. The generic MACT standards
generally refer the owner or operator to other subparts for
requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance.
We are proposing to include the NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and
Spandex Production source categories in the generic MACT standards to
simplify the rulemaking process, to minimize the potential for
duplicative or conflicting requirements, to conserve limited resources,
and to ensure consistency of the air emissions requirements applied to
similar emission points. We believe that the generic MACT regulatory
framework is appropriate for these source categories because it allows
us to incorporate specific applicability and control requirements that
reflect our decisions on these source categories while also utilizing
generic requirements previously established for similar emission
sources that we have determined are also applicable here.
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires that emission standards for
control of HAP be prescribed unless, in our judgement, it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards. Section 112(h)
identifies two conditions under which it is not considered feasible to
prescribe or enforce emission standards. These conditions are: (1) If
the HAP cannot be emitted through a conveyance device, or (2) if the
application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources
is not practicable due to technological or economic limitations. If
emission standards are not feasible to prescribe or enforce, then we
may instead promulgate equipment, work practice, design, or operational
standards, or a combination of them.
Common formats for emission standards include a percent reduction,
concentration limit, or mass emission limit. In some instances,
adoption of an emission standard may be feasible for certain sources
within a category or subcategory and not for other sources within the
same category or subcategory. In such cases, we may adopt both an
emission standard and an alternative equipment, design, work practice,
or operational standard, but only one type of standard will apply to a
given source depending on the nature and configuration of that source.
Because today's proposed standards reference several other subparts
to control emissions, the format of the standards (i.e., emission
standard or work practice) for each emission type is that of the
subparts which are referenced. We developed the formats of the
standards proposed today based on the development of the formats for
the existing generic standards.
D. What Are the Proposed Amendments to Subpart YY and the Subparts
Referenced By It?
We are proposing to add sections to subpart YY and the subparts
referenced by it that specify who has the authority to implement and
enforce the subparts. These sections specify the authorities that will
be retained by the EPA Administrator and the authorities that may be
delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency. These proposed sections
do not affect the stringency of the standards, nor would they increase
the burden on a State, local, or tribal agency.
The proposed amendments clarify appropriate methods for
demonstrating compliance with percent reduction requirements and
emission concentration limits on combustion devices. The proposed
amendments allow owners and operators to use either Method 25, 25A
(under certain specific conditions), or 18 to demonstrate compliance
with the HAP percent emission reduction requirement. However, if Method
18 is used, we clarify that only HAP that are present in the inlet to
the device can be used to characterize the percent reduction across the
device. Additionally, you must first determine which HAP are present in
the inlet gas stream (i.e., uncontrolled emissions) using process
knowledge or a screening procedure. When using Method 25 or 25A, you
must measure the inlet and outlet mass emissions as carbon.
We provided this clarification because when organic compounds are
controlled by combustion processes, the organic pollutants emitted at
the outlet of the device are not the same as those entering the inlet
to the device and are typically unknown. Method 18, which measures
specific, known compounds, will not yield accurate results unless it
can be used to determine the percent reduction of known compounds
across the device. Conversely, Method 25 measures total non-methane
organic compounds and can be used to determine percent reduction across
the combustion device regardless of how the combustion process affects
the inlet and outlet streams. Under certain conditions (i.e.,
controlled emissions concentrations less than 50 parts per million by
volume (ppmv)), Method 25A may be used in lieu of Method 25 for
determining the reduction across a combustion device.
In demonstrating compliance with the outlet concentration standard,
you may use Method 18 or Method 25A. If
[[Page 76411]]
Method 18 is used, the resulting concentration must be reported as the
compound or compounds measured; however, if Method 25A is used, the
concentration must be reported as carbon.
II. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
A. Introduction
1. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
We have identified the following HAP emission sources at cyanide
chemicals manufacturing facilities: (1) Process vents, (2) storage
vessels, (3) equipment leaks, (4) transfer operations, and (5)
wastewater treatment operations. We estimate that HAP emissions from
process vents and equipment leaks account for more than 96 percent of
the total HAP emissions from the source category.
We estimate nationwide HAP emissions from the cyanide chemicals
manufacturing industry to be 239 Mg/yr (263 TPY). The predominant HAP
emitted from this source category include cyanide compounds (hydrogen
cyanide (HCN) and sodium cyanide), acrylonitrile, and acetonitrile.
2. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the HAP Emitted?
In the following paragraphs, we present a discussion of the effects
of inhalation exposure to cyanide compounds, acrylonitrile, and
acetonitrile.
Cyanide Compounds. Acute inhalation exposure to high concentrations
of cyanide compounds can be rapidly lethal. Acute inhalation of HCN at
lower concentrations can cause a variety of adverse health effects in
humans, such as weakness, headache, nausea, increased rate of
respiration, and eye and skin irritation. Chronic inhalation exposure
to cyanide compounds can result in effects on the central nervous
system, such as headaches, dizziness, numbness, tremor, and loss of
visual acuity. Other chronic exposure effects in humans include
cardiovascular and respiratory effects, an enlarged thyroid gland, and
irritation to the eyes and skin.
Acrylonitrile. Acute inhalation exposure of workers to
acrylonitrile has been associated with the occurrence of low-grade
anemia, cyanosis, leukocytosis, kidney irritation, mild jaundice, and
labored breathing. Symptoms include mucous membrane irritation,
headaches, dizziness, nausea, apprehension and nervous irritability,
muscle weakness, and convulsions.
Chronic inhalation exposure of workers to acrylonitrile has been
associated with headaches, nausea, and weakness. There are also several
studies that indicate a statistically significant increase in the
incidence of lung cancer of workers with chronic inhalation exposure to
acrylonitrile.
Acetonitrile. Acute inhalation exposure of humans to acetonitrile
in concentrations up to 500 ppmv can cause irritation of mucous
membranes, and higher concentrations have been associated with
weakness, nausea, convulsions and death. Chronic inhalation exposure to
acetonitrile results in cyanide poisoning from metabolic release of
cyanide after absorption. The major effects associated with cyanide
poisoning consist of headaches, numbness, and tremors.
B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
1. What Is the Source Category To Be Regulated?
The Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category includes
facilities that are engaged in the manufacture of HCN or sodium
cyanide: (1) By reaction of methane and ammonia over a catalyst (the
Blausaure Methane Anlage (BMA) process), (2) by reaction of methane and
ammonia in the presence of oxygen over a catalyst (the Andrussow
process), or (3) as a by-product of the acrylonitrile production
process (the Sohio production process). The source category also
includes facilities that manufacture sodium cyanide via the
neutralization process, sometimes referred to as the ``wet process,''
in which HCN reacts with sodium hydroxide solution, usually in a system
that includes the evaporation of water and crystallization of the
product.
2. What Is the Affected Source?
For the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category, the
affected source includes each cyanide chemicals manufacturing process
unit, along with associated wastewater streams and equipment, that is
located at a major source. A cyanide chemicals manufacturing process
unit is the equipment assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct
work that processes raw materials to manufacture, store, and transport
a cyanide chemicals product. The proposed definition of ``cyanide
chemicals manufacturing process unit'' also contains a list of
equipment that is part of the process unit. This list includes reactors
and associated unit operations; associated recovery devices; feed,
intermediate, and product storage vessels; product transfer racks and
connected ducts and piping; pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure-
relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; and control
devices.
We have identified four distinct processes used to produce cyanide
chemicals. Therefore, the definition of affected source for cyanide
chemicals manufacturing specifies that a cyanide chemicals
manufacturing process unit may be any one of the following: an
Andrussow process unit, a BMA process unit, a sodium cyanide process
unit, or a Sohio HCN process unit. The definitions of each of these
types of process units describes the process and delineates where the
process unit begins and ends.
The Andrussow and BMA process units begin with (and include) the
raw material storage tanks and end at the point at which refined HCN
enters a reactor in a downstream process or is shipped offsite.
A Sohio HCN process unit, in which HCN is produced as a byproduct
of acrylonitrile, begins at the point where the HCN leaves the unit
operation where the HCN is separated from acrylonitrile. This unit
operation is often referred to as the ``light ends column.'' As with
all the other HCN process units, the Sohio HCN process unit ends at the
point at which refined HCN enters a reactor in a downstream process or
is shipped offsite.
The sodium cyanide process unit begins just prior to the unit
operation where refined HCN is reacted with sodium hydroxide and ends
at the point just prior to where the solid sodium cyanide product is
shipped offsite or enters a reactor in a downstream process.
3. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards?
We are proposing NESHAP that would regulate HAP emissions from
process vents from continuous unit operations, storage vessels storing
HCN product, transfer operations, wastewater, and equipment leaks (from
compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, pumps, sampling
connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and
instrumentation systems). We are proposing the same requirements for
existing and new sources, except for wastewater. The following are
summaries of the proposed requirements for each type of emission point.
a. Process Vents from Continuous Unit Operations. For process vents
from continuous unit operations, we are proposing different standards
for each of the four types of cyanide chemicals manufacturing process
units. For each
[[Page 76412]]
process unit type, we are proposing that overall HAP emissions from the
process vents within the process unit be reduced by a specified amount.
The required emissions reductions would depend on the type of process
unit. The owner or operator would have the option of controlling some
vents and not others; or controlling all vents to different levels, as
long as the overall process unit process vent HAP emissions standard is
achieved. We are also proposing that owners or operators may comply by
reducing emissions of HAP from each individual process vent to a
concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion
device is the control device and supplemental combustion air is used to
combust the emissions). The proposed emissions reductions requirements
are summarized below by type of cyanide chemicals manufacturing
process.
Andrussow and BMA HCN production process unit. Except during
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, we are proposing that HAP
emissions from process vents from Andrussow and BMA HCN production
process units be reduced by 99 weight-percent or to a concentration of
20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the
control device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust the
emissions).
During periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction, we are
proposing that process vent HAP emissions be vented through a closed
vent system to a flare, or reduced from each process vent by 98 weight-
percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen
if a combustion device is the control device and supplemental
combustion air is used to combust the emissions).
Sohio HCN production process unit. For process vents from Sohio HCN
production process units, we are proposing that overall process vent
HCN emissions from the process unit be reduced by 98 weight-percent or
to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a
combustion device is the control device and supplemental combustion air
is used to combust the emissions), or by venting emissions to a flare.
Sodium cyanide production process units (wet-end and dry-end
process vents). In the proposed rule, we define wet-end process vents
as process vents that originate from the reactor, crystallizer, or any
other unit operation in the wet end of the sodium cyanide process unit;
and we define dry-end process vents as process vents originating from
the drum filter or any other unit operation in the dry end of a sodium
cyanide manufacturing process unit. We are proposing that overall HAP
emissions from wet-end process vents be reduced by 98 weight-percent or
to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a
combustion device is the control device and supplemental combustion air
is used to combust the emissions), or by venting emissions to a flare.
We are proposing requirements that overall HAP emissions from dry-end
process vents be reduced by 98 weight-percent.
b. Storage Vessels. We are proposing that HAP emissions from
storage vessels that contain HCN be vented through a closed vent system
to a flare or any combination of control devices that reduces HAP
emissions by 98 weight-percent.
c. Transfer Operations. We are proposing requirements to control
emissions for each transfer rack that is used to load HCN into tank
trucks or rail cars by venting emissions through a closed vent system
to a flare or any combination of control devices that reduces emissions
of HCN by 98 weight-percent.
d. Equipment Leaks. We are proposing requirements to control HCN
emissions through the implementation of a leak detection and repair
(LDAR) program for equipment that contains or contacts HCN and operates
300 hours or more per year.
We are proposing that an owner or operator may comply with the rule
by complying with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, National Emission
Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control Level 1; or 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UU, National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control
Level 2. The provisions of these subparts control emissions from
equipment leaks by work practices (e.g., inspection for leaks,
instrument monitoring) and equipment specifications. Both of these
subparts require that you inspect equipment for leaks and repair
detected leaks.
e. Wastewater. We are proposing control requirements for HAP
emissions from process wastewater streams at new facilities where the
process water contains HAP that are discarded from a cyanide chemicals
manufacturing process unit. We are proposing that the HAP emissions
from the process wastewater must be suppressed while the wastewater is
being conveyed to a treatment device, and we are specifying
requirements for the controls to reduce the HCN and acetonitrile
concentration in the process wastewater. We are proposing that the
treatment device achieve 95 percent removal of HAP, and that vents on
the treatment device be controlled to reduce HAP emissions by 98
percent.
4. What Are the Testing and Initial and Continuous Compliance
Requirements?
We are proposing testing and initial and continuous compliance
requirements that are, where appropriate, based on procedures and
methods that we have previously developed and used for emission point
sources similar to those for which standards are being proposed today.
For example, we are proposing control applicability determination
procedures, performance tests, and test methods to determine whether a
process vent stream is required to apply control devices and to
demonstrate that the allowed emission levels are achieved when controls
are applied. The proposed requirements are dependent on the control
device selected.
We are proposing control applicability determination procedures to
measure process vent flow rate and process vent HAP concentration
measurement. The proposed test methods parallel what we have used for
process vent organic HAP emission point sources in previous standards
(e.g., the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)). For measuring vent stream
flow rate, we propose the use of Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A. For measuring total vent stream HAP
concentration to determine whether it is below a specified level, we
propose the use of Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Additionally, we are proposing to require initial performance tests
for all control devices other than flares and certain boilers and
process heaters used as control devices for HAP emissions from process
vents. As with the HON, we are not proposing a requirement to perform
an initial performance test for boilers and process heaters larger than
44 megawatts (MW) (150 million British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr))
because they operate at high temperatures and residence times. Analysis
shows that when vent streams are introduced into the flame zone of
these boilers and process heaters, greater than 98 weight-percent of
organic HAP emissions are reduced, or an outlet concentration of 20
ppmv organic HAP is achieved. For flares, a percent reduction or outlet
concentration measurement is not feasible. Therefore, we determined
that a performance test is not necessary if the control device is a
boiler, a process heater larger than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr), or a
flare. For all other types of control devices, the proposed NESHAP
require the owner or operator to conduct a performance test to
demonstrate that
[[Page 76413]]
the control device can achieve the required control level and to
establish operating parameters to be maintained to demonstrate
continuous compliance. The proposed requirements for cyanide chemicals
manufacturing list the parameters that can be monitored for combustion
devices. For other control devices, we require that an owner or
operator establish site-specific parameter ranges for monitoring
purposes through the Notification of Compliance Status report and
operating permit. Parameters selected are required to be good
indicators of continuous control device performance.
In addition to testing and monitoring of emissions control
equipment, we are also proposing that the closed vent system that
routes emissions to control equipment be initially and annually tested
for HAP emission leaks (i.e., measurement greater than 500 ppmv). If a
leak is detected, we would require that you eliminate the leak and
monitor equipment (no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is
detected).
5. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
We are proposing notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in accordance with the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A) and other previously promulgated NESHAP for similar source
categories.
We are proposing that owners or operators of cyanide chemicals
manufacturing affected sources submit the following four types of
reports: (1) Initial Notification, (2) Notification of Compliance
Status, (3) periodic reports, and (4) other reports. Records of
reported information and other information necessary to document
compliance with the standards would be required to be kept for 5 years.
Equipment design records would be required to be kept for the life of
the equipment.
For the Initial Notification, we are proposing that you list the
cyanide chemicals manufacturing processes at your facility, and which
provisions may apply. The Initial Notification must also state whether
your facility can achieve compliance by the specified compliance date.
You must submit this notification within 1 year after the date of
promulgation for existing sources, and within 180 days before
commencement of construction or reconstruction of an affected source.
For the Notification of Compliance Status report, we are proposing
that you submit the information necessary to demonstrate that
compliance has been achieved, such as the results of performance tests
and design analyses. For each test method that you use for a particular
kind of emission point (e.g., process vent), you must submit one
complete test report. This notification must also include the specific
range established for each monitored parameter for each emission point
for demonstrating continuous compliance, and the rationale for why this
range indicates proper operation of the control device.
For periodic reports, we are proposing that you report periods when
the values of monitored parameters are outside the ranges established
in the Notification of Compliance Status report. For process vents,
records of continuously monitored parameters must be kept. For some
emission source types, such as storage vessels, equipment (e.g.,
valves, pumps), and certain control devices (e.g., flares), periodic
inspections or measurements are required instead of continuous
monitoring. Records that such inspections or measurements were
performed must be kept, but results are included in your periodic
report only if there is problem. For example, for equipment associated
with a cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit, inspections and/or
leak detection monitoring records must be kept. However, the results of
such monitoring must be submitted in the periodic report only if a leak
is detected. We are proposing that the owner or operator submit these
reports semiannually, unless monitored parameter values for a
particular emission point are outside the established range greater
than a specified percentage of the operating time, or if a problem is
found during periodic inspections or measurements, whereby quarterly
reporting is required.
Other proposed reporting requirements include reports to notify the
regulatory authority before or after a specific event (e.g., if a
process change is made, requests for extension of repair period).
C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing
1. How Did EPA Select the Source Category?
On February 12, 1998 (63 FR 7155), we combined the HCN production
and sodium cyanide production source categories into a new major source
category called Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing. Some facilities
produce sodium cyanide and HCN in the same process train (i.e., using
the same or linked equipment); therefore, we decided to combine these
two source categories because it makes more sense to have facilities
subject to one rule rather than two separate rules for different parts
of their process.
The Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category includes
facilities that manufacture HCN using any of the following methods: The
BMA production process, the Andrussow production process, and as a
byproduct of the Sohio HCN production process. The source category also
includes facilities that manufacture sodium cyanide via the
neutralization process (or the ``wet process''). We defined the source
category to include these specific production processes because these
are the only processes we identified that manufacture HCN and sodium
cyanide in the United States.
Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA gives us the authority to ``* * *
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category * * *'' when developing standards. Subcategories, or subsets
of similar emission sources within a source category, may be defined if
technical differences in emissions characteristics, processes, control
device applicability, or opportunities for pollution prevention exist
within the source category (57 FR 31576). Specific examples of these
differences include the types of products, process equipment
differences, the type and level of emission controls, emissions
sources, and any other factors that would impact a MACT standard.
We did not identify differences in the four cyanide chemicals
manufacturing processes (the Andrussow process, the BMA process, the
Sohio HCN production process, and the sodium cyanide process) included
in the source category that we believe meet the criteria presented
above for subcategorization. All four processes emit cyanide chemicals
(HCN and sodium cyanide), acetonitrile, and/or acrylonitrile. In
addition, facilities using each process type commonly utilize some form
of combustion to reduce HAP emissions from point sources. Furthermore,
the type of cyanide chemicals manufacturing process does not affect the
ability of a facility to reduce fugitive HAP emissions. Therefore,
because these processes have similar emissions characteristics, control
device applicability, and opportunities for pollution prevention, we
determined that it was not necessary to divide this source category
into subcategories.
[[Page 76414]]
2. How Did EPA Select the Affected Source?
The affected source is the group of unit operations, equipment, and
emission points that are subject to the proposed NESHAP. The affected
source can be defined as narrowly as a single item of equipment or as
broadly as all equipment at the plant site that is used to manufacture
the product that defines the source category. A major factor that we
considered in selecting the affected source for the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source category was the relationship between the affected
source definition and the format of the standards.
The format of the standards for process vents is a process-unit-
wide emission limit (i.e., specified percent emissions reductions from
all process vents in the process unit). This provides an owner or
operator the option of selecting the most cost-effective level of
control for each individual process vent, as long as the overall
emissions limit is achieved. To accommodate this format, it was
necessary to define the affected source to include all process vents in
a process unit.
The affected source also defines the collection of equipment that
you would evaluate to determine whether replacement of components at an
existing affected source would qualify as reconstruction. If we define
the affected source narrowly, it could affect whether some parts of a
process unit would be subject to new source or existing source
requirements. Since we are proposing the same requirements for existing
and new sources for cyanide chemicals manufacturing emission points,
the only implication for narrowly defining the cyanide chemicals
manufacturing affected source would be when the source would have to
comply with the standards.
We are proposing the process unit that manufactures cyanide
chemicals as the foundation for the affected source. We are proposing a
definition of the cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit as a
collection of equipment, assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct
work, that is used to process raw materials to manufacture, store, and
transport a cyanide chemicals product.
Of the five types of emission points at facilities that manufacture
cyanide chemicals (process vents, storage vessels, equipment leaks,
transfer operations, and wastewater), all except wastewater are
typically located within a cyanide chemicals production process unit.
Wastewater that is generated within a process unit is often routed
outside the unit for treatment and discharge. In addition, some
equipment (i.e., pumps, valves, compressors, etc.) that is used to
transport chemicals may be located outside of the cyanide chemicals
manufacturing process unit. Therefore, we have proposed a definition of
the affected source to include each cyanide chemicals manufacturing
process unit and all associated waste management units, maintenance
wastewater, and equipment in HAP service.
Cyanide chemicals production process units are seldom ``stand-
alone'' facilities. Rather, the production of cyanide chemicals is
usually part of an integrated facility. Therefore, the point at which a
cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit begins and ends is not
always obvious. Because of this, it is necessary to define the
boundaries of the affected source.
As discussed previously, four distinct processes are included in
the source category. The proposed rule specifies that a cyanide
chemicals manufacturing process unit can be either an Andrussow process
unit, a BMA process unit, a sodium cyanide process unit, or a Sohio HCN
production process unit. The boundaries of the affected source are
described in the definitions of the individual types of process units.
We determined that a common demarcation of the end point of the
affected source is appropriate for all four process types, but the
beginning point needs to be defined separately for each type of process
unit.
Cyanide chemicals product is either loaded into a tank truck or
railcar, or is used as a raw material in another process at the plant
site or an adjacent plant site. Other production processes for which
HCN may be used as a raw material include processes that produce
acetone cyanohydrin (an intermediate of the methyl methacrylate
production process), adiponitrile, chelating agents, or cyanuric
chloride. We considered including downstream production process HCN
emission points under the cyanide chemicals affected source. However,
we determined that production processes where HCN is used as a raw
material are covered, or will be covered, by other 40 CFR part 63
subparts. For example, chelating agents production will be covered by
the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP, scheduled for
proposal in the summer of 2000. Cyanuric chloride is an intermediate
product and will be covered by either the Pesticide Active Ingredients
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM) or the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP. Acetone cyanohydrin and adiponitrile
production are subject to the HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart F).
Therefore, we determined that the affected source should end at the
point that the cyanide chemicals product is either shipped offsite or
is used as a raw material in a downstream process. This means that
piping and associated equipment (pumps, valves, etc.) up to the point
where the cyanide chemicals are used in the downstream process (i.e.,
at the reactor) would be included in the cyanide chemicals affected
source. We believe that this is necessary to ensure that potential HAP
emissions from this equipment are covered by a 40 CFR part 63 subpart.
As noted above, we believe that the starting point of the affected
source needs to be defined for each type of process. The Andrussow and
BMA processes are straightforward because raw materials are reacted to
produce HCN. Therefore, for these two processes, we defined the
beginning of the affected source as the point at which raw materials
are stored.
In the Sohio HCN production process, the primary product produced
is acrylonitrile, and HCN is manufactured as a byproduct. The
acrylonitrile production process is covered under the HON, although HCN
emissions are not subject to control under the HON. Therefore, we
needed to determine the point in the Sohio HCN production process where
the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category begins.
We considered including all parts of the Sohio production process
that contained HCN. However, because the Sohio production process is
covered under the HON, many of the streams containing HCN may already
be controlled to the HON level of control. Although HCN is not covered
by the HON (i.e., HCN is not included in table 2 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart F), the types of control devices (i.e., combustion devices)
utilized by Sohio facilities to comply with the HON also reduce HCN
emissions. As a result, we concluded that the burden of overlapping
standards would not justify the very small potential for additional HCN
reductions.
We wanted to define a point so that there would be no overlap
between a HON affected source and a cyanide chemicals affected source.
There is a point in the Sohio production process where the HCN is
separated from the acrylonitrile, typically in a unit operation
referred to as the ``light ends column.'' Therefore, we defined the
beginning of the Sohio HCN production process unit as the point the HCN
leaves the unit operation where the HCN is
[[Page 76415]]
separated from the acrylonitrile. Because of our concern about the
potential for overlapping requirements affecting a Sohio production
process unit, we are specifically requesting comment on our proposed
definition for the cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected source.
A primary raw material used in the production of sodium cyanide is
HCN. Hydrogen cyanide that is produced in an Andrussow, BMA, or Sohio
production process unit can be fed directly into a process to make
sodium cyanide. Therefore, it was necessary to delineate the boundaries
between an HCN process unit and a sodium cyanide process unit. Most
commonly, HCN is refined in the HCN process and then fed into a
reactor, where it is reacted with sodium hydroxide to form sodium
cyanide. Therefore, we defined the beginning of the sodium cyanide
process unit as the unit operation where refined HCN is reacted with
sodium hydroxide. However, some facilities do not refine the HCN prior
to reacting it with sodium hydroxide. In these cases, raw HCN is
usually sent to an absorber, where it is absorbed into a sodium
hydroxide solution to form sodium cyanide. Since the emission stream
from this absorber is comparable to the emission stream from an
absorber in a HCN process, we considered this absorber to be part of
the HCN process unit, rather than part of the sodium cyanide process
unit. Therefore, in situations where raw HCN is reacted with sodium
hydroxide prior to being refined, we clarified that the sodium
hydroxide process begins at the point that the aqueous sodium cyanide
stream leaves the unit operation where the sodium cyanide is formed.
Additionally, in order to define the point at which the sodium
cyanide production process begins, we are proposing definitions for raw
HCN and refined HCN. In the proposed NESHAP, we have defined raw HCN as
HCN that has not been through the refining process and usually has an
HCN concentration less than 10 percent. We have also proposed a
definition of refined HCN to mean the HCN that has been through the
refining process and usually contains an HCN concentration greater than
99 percent. We are specifically requesting comments on the proposed
definitions for raw HCN and refined HCN, as well as the point at which
the sodium cyanide production process begins.
3. How Did EPA Select the Basis and Level of the Proposed NESHAP for
Existing and New Sources?
We identified 16 facilities that manufacture cyanide chemicals
which we believe represent the entire industry in the United States.
For existing sources, the CAA requires us to establish emission
standards that are at least as stringent as ``* *ensp;* the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing five sources * *
*'' for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. For new
sources, emission standards ``* * * shall not be less stringent than
the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar source.''
The term ``average'' is not defined in section 112(d)(3) of the
CAA. We have the discretion within the statutory framework to set MACT
floors at appropriate levels, and we have interpreted the term
``average'' to mean the mean, median, mode, or some other measure of
central tendency (59 FR 29196).
We chose the median (the value in a set of measurements below and
above which there are an equal number of values, when the measurements
are arranged in order of magnitude) as the measure of central tendency
in this MACT floor analysis for existing sources. We found that, for
this source category, the arithmetic mean resulted in a level of
control that was not representative of any actual control technology.
Using a median allowed us to select a MACT floor that corresponds
directly to the level of control represented by a particular control
device. Also, because the data set we used in our MACT floor analysis
consists of data from only 16 facilities, we did not use a mode, which
is more appropriate for large data sets.
We also considered whether to separate emission sources into groups
by emission source type (e.g., tanks, process vents, fugitive emission
sources) based on equipment type, equipment size, equipment contents,
stream characteristics, or control device applicability. Because of
differences in emissions characteristics and vent stream
characteristics, we separated the emission points in the Cyanide
Chemicals Manufacturing source category by emission source type. We
grouped the emission points into one of the following: Process vents,
storage vessels, wastewater streams, equipment leaks, or transfer
operations.
In addition, we may make grouping decisions within each emission
source type based on equipment type, equipment size, equipment
contents, stream characteristics, or other elements that could affect
the emission potential of an emission point or the ability to reduce
emissions from that emission point. We evaluated whether the different
types of cyanide chemicals manufacturing processes should be considered
for each emission source type. We concluded that for storage vessels,
equipment leaks, wastewater, and transfer operations, the elements that
can affect the emission potential of an emission point or the ability
to reduce emissions from the emission point were not influenced by the
type of process. For example, the ability to control HCN emissions from
a storage vessel is not dependent on the type of process.
We did create groupings for process vents. Because of similarities
in the types of unit operations and types of control devices being used
in the Andrussow and BMA production processes, we grouped and analyzed
these two processes together to determine the MACT floor for process
vents. We did not include process vents from the Sohio HCN production
process in this group, primarily because of the differences in process
operations and controls. Specifically, the Sohio HCN production process
vents typically have much lower emissions and are typically controlled
by using a flare, while emissions from process vents in the Andrussow
and BMA processes are somewhat higher and are typically controlled by a
boiler.
Process vents in the sodium cyanide process were separated into
wet-end process vents and dry-end process vents to determine the MACT
floor. We did this primarily because emissions from dry-end process
vents are particulate cyanide chemicals (i.e., solid sodium cyanide),
rather than gaseous emissions. Therefore, the types of controls used in
the dry end may be different from those used in the wet end.
As previously discussed, the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source
category has fewer than 30 sources, so the MACT floor must be based on
the best performing five sources. We determined the best performing
cyanide chemicals manufacturing process units for each emission source
type: Process vents (Andrussow/BMA process, Sohio HCN production
process, wet-end sodium cyanide process vents, and dry-end sodium
cyanide process vents), storage vessels, transfer operations, equipment
leaks, and wastewater. If data were not available for each emission
source type at five or more facilities, we determined the MACT floor
based on the number of facilities for which data were available. The
[[Page 76416]]
following paragraphs discuss the MACT floor analysis for each emission
source type.
a. Process Vents. We considered two basic measures of performance
for determining the best performing sources. We considered a HAP
emission factor, expressed as HAP emissions per unit of production. We
also considered an overall process unit HAP emission reduction,
expressed as a percent HAP reduction. Emission factors were calculated
for each cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit, but we rejected
these factors for determining the MACT floor because we could not
verify information on production rates, and the accuracy and bases of
the emission rates were not always apparent. We, therefore, used the
percent emission reduction across the process as the basis for ranking
facilities within each process type because a percent emission
reduction is less sensitive to the mass emission rate and does not rely
on production rate. This approach was selected to determine the MACT
floor levels of control for process vents, and the proposed standard is
expressed as a required percent HAP emission reduction.
The following discussion presents the results of our MACT floor
analysis for process vents for each type of cyanide chemicals
manufacturing process.
Andrussow/BMA process. In our MACT floor analysis, we considered
nine facilities that use the Andrussow or BMA process. All nine
facilities reported that they use combustion to control HAP emissions
from process vents. Of these nine facilities, we had control efficiency
data for seven facilities. The emission reduction for all of the five
best performing facilities is 99 weight-percent or greater. Therefore,
we concluded that the MACT floor for existing sources is 99 weight-
percent.
To determine the MACT floor for new sources, we attempted to
determine the best performing source. We evaluated the reported control
efficiencies for the five best performing sources in this group. All of
the sources apply some form of combustion; however, we were unable to
identify any technical basis for the reported differences in control
efficiencies for these combustion devices. Therefore, we selected the
MACT floor for new sources as 99 weight-percent.
All of the five best performing sources controlled emissions during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction events using a flare. In general, we
assume that a properly operated flare will achieve an emission
reduction of 98 weight-percent. Therefore, we determined that the MACT
floor for startup, shutdown, or malfunction events for new and existing
process vents is a flare or a 98 weight-percent emission reduction.
To select the proposed MACT for process vents from the Andrussow/
BMA process, we considered above-the-floor options for existing and new
sources. As previously discussed, we could not identify the technical
basis for the differences in reported emissions reductions for the
combustion devices represented by the MACT floor. Thus, all of the
combustion devices included in the MACT floor analysis were considered
to be equivalent. Therefore, we did not identify a control technology
more stringent than the MACT floor for process vents in the Andrussow
or BMA processes. We are proposing that MACT for process vents from the
Andrussow/BMA production process is the level of control represented by
the MACT floor (i.e., a 99 weight-percent emission reduction).
Sodium cyanide (wet-end) process. We had information for three
sodium cyanide facilities that have wet-end process vents. One facility
had uncontrolled process vents, and the other two facilities each had
an emission reduction of 98 weight-percent based on the use of
combustion devices and a median emission reduction of 98 weight-
percent. Therefore, we determined that the MACT floor for new and
existing sources is 98 weight-percent based on the use of a combustion
device.
To select MACT for wet-end process vents, we considered the impacts
of above-the-floor options for existing and new sources. As shown
above, two of the three sodium cyanide facilities included in the MACT
floor analysis are controlled, and we believe that the incremental
costs (and the associated cost effectiveness) of achieving a small
emission reduction greater than 98 weight-percent would be
disproportional to the additional HAP emission reduction that would be
achieved (i.e., it would not be cost effective to require a facility to
remove an existing combustion device and replace it with one that gets
an additional 1 percent emission reduction). As a result, we did not
perform an analysis of above-the-floor control technologies for wet-end
process vents at sodium cyanide production facilities. Therefore, we
are proposing that MACT for process vents in the wet end of sodium
cyanide production facilities for existing and new sources is a 98
weight-percent emission reduction (i.e., the MACT floor).
Sodium cyanide (dry-end) process. Information was available for two
sodium cyanide facilities with dry-end process vents. We had control
efficiency data for both of these facilities. The control efficiencies
were 83 weight-percent based on a cyclonic dust collector and 98
weight-percent based on a caustic scrubber, with the average emission
reduction being 90 weight-percent. Therefore, we determined that the
MACT floor for existing sources is 90 weight-percent and the MACT floor
for new sources is 98 weight-percent.
To select MACT for dry-end process vents at existing sources, we
evaluated the impacts of the MACT floor for new sources. We estimate
that the incremental cost effectiveness associated with raising the
existing source dry-end process vent emission reduction requirement
from 90 weight-percent to 98 weight-percent is reasonable; therefore,
we selected 98 weight-percent as MACT for existing sources.
We did not identify an option more stringent than the MACT floor
for new sources. Therefore, we are proposing that MACT for dry-end
process vents at new sources is the MACT floor.
Sohio HCN production process. There are five facilities using the
Sohio HCN production process that were considered in the MACT floor
analysis. Of these five facilities, we have control efficiency data for
four facilities. The emission reduction ranges from 97.8 to 98 weight-
percent. The median emission reduction for facilities for which there
is available data is 98 weight-percent. Therefore, we determined that
the MACT floor for new and existing sources is 98 weight-percent.
To select MACT for process vents from the Sohio HCN production
process, we considered the impacts of above-the-floor options for
existing and new sources. Several of the facilities included in the
MACT floor analysis are controlled, and we believe that the incremental
costs (and the associated incremental cost effectiveness) of achieving
a small emission reduction greater than 98 weight-percent would be
disproportional to the additional HAP emission reduction that would be
achieved (i.e., it would not be cost effective to require a facility to
remove an existing combustion device and replace it with one that gets
an additional 1 percent emission reduction). As a result, we did not
perform an analysis of above-the-floor control technologies for process
vents at Sohio HCN production facilities. Therefore, we are proposing
that MACT for process vents in Sohio HCN production facilities for
existing and new sources is the MACT floor.
[[Page 76417]]
Alternative standards and compliance options (all process vents).
Many of the facilities for which we have data control every process
vent to a degree that would meet the proposed level of control.
Clearly, the overall reduction would comply with the required reduction
if each vent was achieving the required emission reduction. In this
situation, we did not believe that owners or operators needed to
calculate a process-unit-wide emission reduction. Therefore, we added
the option that each process vent could be controlled to the required
level. We believe that this would reduce the burden of demonstrating
compliance for owners and operators in this situation.
In the preamble to the proposed New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) for Air Oxidation Unit Process (48 FR 48932, October 21, 1983),
we stated that 20 ppmv is the lowest outlet concentration achievable by
combustion of low concentration streams (i.e., streams with
concentrations less than around 2,000 ppmv). In addition, we expanded
the application of this lower bound concentration performance standard
to control/recovery devices other than incinerators (61 FR 43698,
August 26, 1996) controlling volatile organic compounds. Therefore, for
all instances where the selected level of control is a specified
percent reduction, we are proposing an alternative that would allow
compliance by achieving an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected
to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the control device and
supplemental combustion air is used to combust the emissions) for each
individual emission point (i.e., this option is not allowed if you are
complying with a process-unit-wide process vent requirement). We
believe that 20 ppmv is a reasonable level achievable for low-
concentration streams. The exceptions to this are the requirements for
sodium cyanide dry-end process vents. Since the emissions from these
dry-end vents are particulate, the rationale for the 20 ppmv
alternative is not applicable.
Forms of the standards (all process vents). The proposed standards
for process vents include a combination of forms. For process vent
streams controlled by control devices other than a flare, we selected
the form of a numerical emission limitation (a weight-percent reduction
or a concentration), either on an individual vent basis, or process-
wide. This form was chosen based on the controls used at cyanide
chemicals manufacturing facilities and the data available for our MACT
analysis.
For vent streams controlled by a flare, we selected a form
consisting of equipment and operating specifications, consistent with
the form for flare requirements that we have specified for other
industries. This is because it is very difficult to measure the
emissions from a flare to determine its efficiency.
b. Storage Tanks. Information was available for HCN storage vessels
at eight facilities. The HCN storage vessels are controlled at all
eight facilities: Five with a flare as the primary control device,
which we assume achieves 98 weight-percent emission reduction; one with
a scrubber, which was reported to achieve an emission reduction of 98
weight-percent; one with a scrubber and flare in series; and one with a
gas absorption column. We did not have control efficiency data for the
facility with the scrubber and flare in series or for the facility with
the gas absorption column; therefore, these facilities were not
considered in the MACT floor analysis for storage vessels. The
remaining facilities were ranked by emission reduction, and the five
best performing facilities were determined to be those with the highest
percentage emission reduction. The emission reduction associated with
all of the top five facilities was 98 weight-percent. Thus, we
determined the MACT floor for new and existing storage vessels to be an
emission reduction of 98 weight-percent through the use of a flare or
other control device.
To select the proposed MACT for storage vessels, we did not
identify any control technologies more stringent than the MACT floor
that would be applicable. Although combustion technologies exist that
could achieve an emission reduction higher than the MACT floor level of
98 weight-percent, we believe that due to the intermittent nature of
storage vessel emissions, flares are the most appropriate combustion
control technology available for this emission source type. Thus, we
did not perform an above-the-floor analysis for storage vessels.
Therefore, we are proposing that MACT for storage vessels for existing
and new sources is the level of control represented by the MACT floor.
The proposed storage vessel provisions include a combination of
forms. For storage vessels that contain HCN that are controlled by a
control device other than a flare, we are proposing an emission
limitation in the form of a specified weight-percent requirement. We
selected this form to give owners and operators the flexibility to
install an applicable control technology to meet the MACT floor.
For storage vessels controlled by venting emissions to a flare, we
have selected a form consisting of equipment and operating
specifications, consistent with the format for flare requirements that
we have specified for other industries. This is because it is very
difficult to measure the emissions from a flare to determine its
efficiency.
c. Equipment Leaks. We have information regarding equipment leak
emission control programs for ten facilities. Four of these facilities
are subject to the equipment leaks NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.
Six facilities are subject to State equipment leak requirements. To
define the five best performing facilities, we compared the State rules
to subpart VV and concluded that subpart VV was either equivalent to,
or more stringent than, the State rules. Therefore, the median facility
was determined to be a facility subject to subpart VV. Thus, we
determined that the MACT floor for new and existing equipment leaks is
subpart VV.
We identified one alternative that is more stringent than the MACT
floor for equipment leaks. The equipment leak provisions in the HON are
more stringent than the subpart VV level of control. The level of
control in subpart VV is equivalent to the Generic MACT control level
1, which is contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. The HON level of
control is equivalent to the Generic MACT control level 2, which is
contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU.
The basic elements of both the level 1 and level 2 equipment leak
programs are the same; however, level 2 requires connector monitoring
and has a significantly lower leak definition. Due to the wide range of
compliance options and performance-based incentives that reduce the
monitoring frequencies, it is difficult to assess the incremental
difference in costs between these two levels of control. In addition,
due to the highly lethal nature of HCN, cyanide chemicals manufacturing
process units are much more rigorously maintained than process units
producing other, less lethal chemicals. Because of these factors, we do
not believe that the additional emission reduction would justify the
costs associated with requiring a cyanide manufacturing facility to
comply with the HON program. Therefore, we concluded that it is not
appropriate to require that existing and new sources comply with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UU.
However, we recognize that many cyanide chemicals manufacturing
process units are collocated with HON facilities. In fact, HCN produced
in a
[[Page 76418]]
Sohio HCN production process is actually a byproduct of a HON process.
For the sake of consistency, some owners or operators of cyanide
chemicals manufacturing process units may prefer to comply with the HON
equipment leak program. Therefore, we are proposing the option of
complying with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT or UU.
The form of the provisions for equipment leaks consists of work
practice and equipment specifications. We have determined that it is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards because
emissions cannot be emitted through a conveyance device, and the
application of a measurement methodology is not practicable due to
technological or economic limitations (57 FR 62608).
We considered whether it is appropriate to require owners and
operators to monitor all equipment components (i.e., connectors,
flanges, valves). We concluded that there could be situations where the
costs of monitoring equipment with very low HAP emission potential are
not reasonable. Therefore, we are proposing an applicability cutoff for
equipment components based on the amount of time the equipment contains
or contacts HAP. We are proposing an applicability cutoff of 300 hours
per year. We selected this cutoff based on what has been adopted under
previously promulgated NESHAP for equipment containing or contacting
organic HAP (i.e., the HON) because we had insufficient data on
equipment leak emissions and control at cyanide manufacturing
facilities.
We are proposing to exempt open ended lines that contain HCN or
acrylonitrile from the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts TT and
UU. According to industry representatives, closing open ended lines
that contain or contact HCN or acrylonitrile could potentially lead to
trapped volumes of these chemicals, which could polymerize and raise
significant safety concerns.
d. Transfer Operations. We have information for HCN transfer
operations at three cyanide chemicals facilities. Two of these
facilities control emissions from transfer operations using a flare.
The third facility routes HCN emissions from transfer operations to a
vent scrubber with a flare as a backup. The emission reduction for all
three of these facilities with transfer operations is reported to be 98
weight-percent. Thus, we determined the MACT floor for new and existing
transfer operations to be an emission reduction of 98 weight-percent
through the use of a flare or other device.
To select the proposed MACT for transfer operations, we did not
identify any control technologies more stringent than the MACT floor
that would be applicable. Although combustion technologies exist that
could achieve an emission reduction higher than the MACT floor level of
98 weight-percent, we believe that the intermittent nature of transfer
operation emissions make flares the most appropriate combustion control
technology for this emission source type. Thus, we did not perform an
above-the-floor analysis for transfer operations. Therefore, we are
proposing that MACT for transfer operations for existing and new
sources is the level of control represented by the MACT floor.
The proposed standards for transfer operations include a
combination of forms. For transfer racks that are used to load HCN into
tank trucks and rail cars that are controlled by control devices other
than a flare, we are proposing an emission limitation in the form of a
specified weight-percent requirement. This form was chosen based on
controls used at cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities and the
data available for our MACT analysis. We selected this form to give
owners and operators the flexibility to implement an applicable control
technology to meet the MACT floor.
For transfer racks controlled by a flare, we selected a form
consisting of equipment and operating specifications, consistent with
the form for flare requirements that we have specified for other
industries and emission points. This is because it is very difficult to
measure the emissions from a flare to determine its efficiency.
e. Wastewater Treatment Operations. Wastewater is generated from
the Andrussow and BMA cyanide manufacturing processes. We had
information available on the wastewater handling practices for seven
facilities in the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category. All
seven of these facilities have wastewater treatment units in place at
their facility necessary to meet either their National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements if they are
allowed to discharge directly to a body of navigable water, or to meet
the requirements for discharging to a publicly owned treatment works
facility if they have an indirect discharge permit. Therefore, the
median of the top five facilities has a wastewater treatment system in
place to meet permitted effluent discharge limits. These wastewater
treatment systems are comprised of a series of tanks used for settling,
neutralization, clarification, and in some cases, biodegradation (most
commonly found at facilities with NPDES permits). All of these
wastewater treatment tanks are open to the atmosphere.
The wastewater generated from these cyanide chemicals manufacturing
facilities tends to enter a collection system (typically a sewer)
through drains, sumps, trenches, and hotwells in the process area. The
collection system carries the wastewater from the process down to the
wastewater treatment system. Our information on these cyanide
manufacturing facilities does not indicate that there are controls in
place to suppress HAP emission losses from the wastewater en route to
the wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, the collection and drain
system design is presumed to be typical of that found in other SOCMI
facilities, in which these HAP emissions vent to the atmosphere through
conveyance points such as junction boxes, man holes, and lift stations.
The tanks in the wastewater treatment plant are open to the atmosphere,
where further HAP losses occur through a combination of evaporation and
mechanical agitation. Six of these seven facilities report that they
have a biological treatment tank or open pond.
We are aware that biological treatment units at SOCMI facilities
are capable of achieving HAP emissions reductions. However, the
biological treatment units at these cyanide manufacturing facilities
were installed to meet requirements associated with discharge of the
effluent. These units were not designed for the purpose of reducing HAP
emissions to the ambient air, and we believe that any associated
reductions of air emissions are insignificant. For this component of
the wastewater treatment system to achieve significant reductions in
air emissions, the wastewater in the drain and conveyance systems, both
within the process and going down to the wastewater treatment system,
must be designed such that HAP emissions are suppressed so that they
can reach the biological treatment system. In addition, the tanks in
the wastewater system prior to the biotreatment tank must also employ
suppression controls.
Site specific variability in performance of biotreatment tanks is
significant. Although all of these facilities report a high level of
removal of known HAP across their wastewater treatment systems, how
much of the HAP that are actually destroyed, as opposed to stripped to
the air, is unknown. The degree that HAP removal occurs through
biological destruction is a function of many factors, including
[[Page 76419]]
the aeration rate, the biomass, the retention time in the tank, the
biological degradation rate, and surface area. As noted in the
promulgation preamble to the HON, ``* * * the variability in
performance makes it difficult to quantify a required emission
reduction for the purpose of setting a standard. Emission reductions
for biological treatment systems can only be determined on a site-
specific basis * * *'' (59 FR 19423). Moreover, given the site-specific
nature of these systems, it would be difficult to develop even a
qualitative work practice standard based on the median of the top five
of these facilities that would both be achievable across the source
category and consistent with continued compliance with effluent
discharge permits. For these reasons, we have determined that the MACT
floor for existing sources is no further control requirements for
wastewater beyond current practices.
Two of the top five facilities report that they treat their process
wastewater using stripping technology. One of these facilities sends
their wastewater to a steam stripper, and the stripper effluent then
goes to their wastewater treatment system. The other facility uses an
air stripper and sends the stripper effluent to an ozonation step and
then on to the wastewater treatment system. Both facilities control the
vents on the strippers by 98 percent through thermal oxidation. The
steam stripper is achieving 95 percent removal across the stripper. The
air stripping system reports similar performance, although steam
stripper performance is better understood in terms of its ability to
remove HAP from wastewater and is generally considered a more widely
applicable control technology for removing HAP from wastewater.
Therefore, we have identified steam stripping achieving 95 percent HAP
removal with 98 percent control of the stripper vent to be the MACT
floor for new sources. We do not have any information that would aid us
in setting an applicability cutoff for wastewater streams based on flow
rate and HAP concentration. We do have information on the specifically-
named wastewater streams being sent to the steam stripper. Therefore,
the new source MACT floor also specifies the streams that must be
controlled.
We are unaware of any technologies capable of performing at a
higher control level than the steam stripping system representing the
new source MACT floor. For this reason, we are not going beyond-the-
floor to set MACT for new sources. We then considered whether this same
stripping technology with control of the stripper vent is an
appropriate control technology beyond-the-floor for existing sources.
Since these cyanide manufacturing processes are similar to other SOCMI
type processes previously regulated under other subparts, we evaluated
what levels of wastewater flow and HAP concentration were considered
necessary to yield a reasonable cost effectiveness beyond-the-floor.
Our available information on cyanide manufacturing wastewater indicates
that the flow rates and HAP concentrations fall well below
applicability cutoffs established under these previously issued
subparts. For that reason, we believe that the cost effectiveness of
going beyond-the-floor for existing cyanide manufacturing sources is
not reasonable.
We did not evaluate wastewater air emissions from sodium cyanide
manufacturing wastewater. These process units typically have some type
of water treatment that is part of the actual process unit. Vents from
these treatment processes are considered to be part of the wet end
production unit process vents and are regulated in the process vent
portion of this proposed rule. We had no data indicating that the
streams exiting these process units contain any HAP except for sodium
cyanide, which is not volatile.
4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements?
We selected the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts YY, SS, TT, UU, and WW to
demonstrate and document compliance with the cyanide chemicals
manufacturing standards. The procedures and methods set out in these
subparts are, where appropriate, based on procedures and methods that
we previously developed for use in implementing standards for emission
point sources similar to those being proposed for the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source category.
General compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that would apply across source categories and affected
emission points are contained within 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY
(Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1113). We specify the applicability
assessment procedures necessary to determine whether an emission point
is required to apply control. These requirements are dependent on the
emission point for which control applicability needs to be assessed and
the form of the applicability cutoff selected for an individual source
category (e.g., HAP concentration cutoff level, above which, control is
required).
We selected emission point and/or control device-specific
monitoring (including continuous monitoring), recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements included under common control requirement
subparts promulgated for storage vessels (40 CFR part 63, subpart WW);
equipment leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or TT); and closed vent
systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel gas
system or a process (40 CFR part 63, subpart SS). These subparts
contain a common set of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. We established these subparts to ensure consistency of
the air emission requirements applied to similar emission points with
pollutant streams containing gaseous HAP. The rationale for the
establishment of these subparts and requirements contained within each
subpart is presented in the proposal preamble for the source category
requirements previously promulgated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY
(63 FR 55186-55191).
We believe that the compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of subparts YY, SS, TT, and UU are appropriate
for demonstrating and documenting compliance with the requirements
proposed for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category. This
is because these requirements were established for standards with
similar form and similar emission points with pollutant streams of
gaseous HAP for which we are requiring MACT compliance demonstration
and documentation under this proposal.
D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts?
1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
Nationwide baseline HAP emissions from the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source category are estimated to be 238 Mg/yr (263 TPY).
These proposed NESHAP will reduce HAP emissions by approximately 106
Mg/yr (117 TPY). This is a 45 percent reduction from the baseline level
for this source category and a 58 percent reduction for those
facilities required to install controls to comply with the proposed
NESHAP.
We also estimate that the proposed NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing source category will reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) by 102 Mg/yr (113 TPY). We estimate that the proposed
NESHAP will result in an increase in sulfur oxide (SOX)
emissions of 7.3 Mg/
[[Page 76420]]
yr (8 TPY), an increase in nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions of
10.3 Mg/yr (11.4 TPY), an increase in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions of
42.1 Mg/yr (46.4 TPY), and an increase in particulate matter (PM)
emissions of 0.3 Mg/yr (0.3 TPY). The increases in emissions result
from the on-site combustion of fossil fuels and emission streams as
part of control device operations.
2. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
The total estimated capital cost of the proposed NESHAP for the
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category is $939,000. The total
estimated annual cost of the proposed NESHAP is $2.4 million (fourth
quarter 1998 dollars).
We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the impacts the
proposed NESHAP would have on the cyanide manufacturing market,
consumers, and society. The total annualized social cost (in 1998
dollars) of the proposed NESHAP on the industry is $2.4 million, which
is much less than 0.001 percent of total baseline revenue for the
affected sources. A screening analysis indicates that no individual
firm affected by the proposed NESHAP would experience costs in excess
of 0.001 percent of sales. For this reason, we believe that the impact
of the proposed NESHAP will be minimal. No facility closures are
expected as a result of the proposed NESHAP.
3. What Are the Nonair Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
We believe that there would not be significant adverse nonair
health, environmental, or energy impacts associated with the proposed
NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category. This is
supported by impacts analyses associated with the application of the
control and recovery devices required under the proposed NESHAP. We
determine impacts relative to the baseline that is set at the level of
control in absence of the standards.
Control of equipment leaks will reduce the amount of HAP-containing
material that could be discharged to a facility's wastewater treatment
stream through equipment washdowns or from stormwater runoff. The use
of a scrubber for HAP control from vents results in an effluent
wastewater stream from the scrubber that would add a small amount of
wastewater to that already being handled at the facility's wastewater
treatment system.
There are minimal solid or hazardous waste impacts associated with
the proposed NESHAP. A small amount of solid waste may result from
replacement of equipment such as seals, packing, rupture disks, and
other equipment components, such as pumps and valves. A minimal amount
of solid or hazardous waste could be generated from the use of steam
strippers to control wastewater emissions. The possible sources include
organic compounds recovered in the steam stripper overheads condenser
or solids removed during feed pretreatment.
The energy demands associated with the control technologies for the
proposed NESHAP include the need for additional electricity, natural
gas, and fuel oil. The storage tank, transfer operations, equipment
leak, and wastewater controls are not expected to require any
additional energy. The total nationwide energy demands that would
result from implementing the process vent controls are approximately
3.1 x 1014 Joules per year.
III. Carbon Black Production
A. Introduction
1. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
We evaluated the following potential HAP emission sources at carbon
black facilities: (1) Process vents, (2) equipment leaks, (3) storage
vessels, and (4) wastewater. Based on available information, we have
discerned that process vents from the main unit filter comprise most of
the HAP emissions from carbon black facilities. Process vent emissions
consist of tailgas from the reactors. The reactor tailgas is sent to a
baghouse where the carbon black is separated from the tailgas. The main
unit filter is where the carbon black is separated from the tailgas.
After separation of the carbon black product, most of the tailgas is
emitted to the atmosphere or sent to a combustion control device. The
process vents after the main unit filter consist of vents from unit
operations involved in the processing of the carbon black into final
product. Hazardous air pollutant emissions may occur from process vents
after the main unit filter, but the amount of HAP emitted from these
vents is very small compared to the amount emitted from process vents
from the main unit filter.
In our evaluation of equipment leaks, we found that leaks were not
a significant source of HAP emissions for the Carbon Black Production
source category. One of the reasons for this is the low vapor pressures
of the raw materials used in the production process (i.e., the typical
carbon black feedstock is less than 0.05 kilopascals).
As with equipment leaks, our evaluation of the potential for HAP
emissions from storage vessels indicated that they were not a
significant source of emissions from carbon black production
facilities. This is because the typical feedstock oil used in the
carbon black production process is heavy fuel oil, which, because of
its low vapor pressure, is not likely to be emitted to the atmosphere
under normal operating conditions. In addition, the feedstock oil is
nearly solid under standard pressure and temperature and typically
needs to be heated to (and maintained at) 120 degrees Fahrenheit to
allow it to flow as a liquid.
In our evaluation of wastewater, we did not identify any wastewater
emissions of consequence as a result of the carbon black production
process. The process uses a quench tower to capture the product, and
the effluent guidelines applicable to this source category require that
there be no discharge of process wastewater to navigable waters from
carbon black production facilities.
We estimate 1996 baseline HAP emissions from the Carbon Black
Production source category to be 7,000 Mg/yr (7,700 TPY). This estimate
reflects emissions from process vents.
2. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the HAP Emitted?
The principal HAP that we have identified as being associated with
carbon black production facilities include carbon disulfide, carbonyl
sulfide, and hydrogen cyanide. In the following paragraphs, we present
a discussion on the effects of inhalation exposure to these compounds.
Carbon disulfide. Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure of humans
to carbon disulfide has caused changes in breathing and chest pains.
Acute human inhalation exposure to carbon disulfide has also been
associated with nausea, vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, headache, mood
changes, lethargy, blurred vision, delirium, and convulsions.
Chronic (long-term) carbon disulfide human exposure and inhalation
studies indicate the potential for adverse neurologic effects. There is
also a potential for reproductive effects in humans, such as decreased
sperm count and menstrual disturbances, that have had chronic
inhalation exposure to carbon disulfide. Developmental effects,
including toxic effects to the embryo and malformations and functional
and behavioral disturbances in offspring, have been observed in studies
on laboratory animals with chronic inhalation exposure to carbon
disulfide.
[[Page 76421]]
Carbonyl sulfide. Acute inhalation exposure to carbonyl sulfide in
high concentrations may cause narcotic effects in humans and may
irritate eyes and skin. No information is available on the chronic
effects of carbonyl sulfide in humans.
Cyanide compounds. Acute inhalation exposure to high concentrations
of cyanide compounds can be rapidly lethal. Acute inhalation of
hydrogen cyanide at lower concentrations can cause a variety of adverse
health effects in humans, such as weakness, headache, nausea, increased
rate of respiration, and eye and skin irritation. Chronic inhalation
exposure to cyanide compounds can result in effects on the central
nervous system, such as headaches, dizziness, numbness, tremor, and
loss of visual acuity. Other chronic inhalation exposure effects in
humans include cardiovascular and respiratory effects, an enlarged
thyroid gland, and irritation to the eyes and skin.
B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Carbon Black Production
1. What Is the Source Category To Be Regulated?
We have defined the Carbon Black Production source category to
include any facility that produces carbon black by the furnace black
process, thermal black process, or the acetylene decomposition process.
The furnace black process is a closed system thermal-oxidative
decomposition process, the thermal black process is a cyclic thermal
decomposition process, and the acetylene black process is a continuous
thermal decomposition process. Carbon black is primarily used as a
reinforcing agent for rubber. The largest use of carbon black is in the
manufacture of automotive and truck tires.
2. What Is the Affected Source?
We have defined the affected source to include each carbon black
production process unit, along with associated process vents and
equipment that are located at a major source, as defined in section
112(a) of the CAA. We define a carbon black production process unit as
the equipment assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct work to
process raw materials used to manufacture, store, and transport a
carbon black product.
3. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards?
For existing and new sources, we are proposing the same
requirements for process vents. For process vents that are associated
with the main unit filter, we are proposing requirements to control HAP
emissions by venting emissions through a closed vent system to a flare,
or by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination
of control devices that reduces emissions of HAP by 98 weight-percent.
As an alternative to meeting a 98 percent by weight HAP emission limit,
we are proposing that an owner or operator may comply with the NESHAP
by reducing emissions of HAP from their process vents from continuous
unit operations to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent
oxygen if a combustion device is the control device and supplemental
combustion air is used to combust the emissions).
4. What Are the Testing and Initial and Continuous Compliance
Requirements?
We are proposing testing and initial and continuous compliance
requirements that are, where appropriate, based on procedures and
methods that we have previously developed and used for emission points
similar to those for which we are proposing standards with this action.
For example, we are proposing applicability determination procedures to
determine whether a process vent stream is required to apply control,
and performance tests and test methods to demonstrate that the emission
limits are achieved when controls are applied. The proposed
requirements are dependent on the control device selected.
We are proposing control applicability determination procedures to
measure process vent flow rate and process vent HAP concentration. The
proposed test methods parallel what we have used for process vent
organic HAP emission point sources in previous standards. For measuring
vent stream flow rate, we propose the use of Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F,
or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For measuring total vent stream
HAP concentration to determine whether the vent stream HAP
concentration is below a specified level, we propose the use of Method
18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Additionally, we are proposing to require initial performance tests
for all control devices other than flares and certain boilers and
process heaters used as control devices for HAP emissions from process
vents. As with the HON, we are not proposing a requirement to perform
an initial performance test for boilers and process heaters larger than
44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) because they operate at high temperatures
and residence times. Analysis shows that when vent streams are
introduced into the flame zone of these boilers and process heaters,
greater than 98 weight-percent of organic HAP emissions are reduced, or
an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv organic HAP is achieved. For flares,
a percent reduction and outlet concentration measurement is not
feasible. Therefore, we determined that a performance test is not
necessary if the control device is a boiler, a process heater larger
than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr), or a flare. We proposed performance
tests that ensure that a control device can achieve the required
control level and help establish operating parameters that are
indicative of proper operation and maintenance.
We are proposing that continuous compliance with emission standards
for process vents be demonstrated by monitoring control device
operating parameters established during the performance tests or
specified in the standards (as applicable). The proposed requirements
for carbon black production list the parameters that can be monitored
for the common types of combustion devices. For other control devices,
we would require that an owner or operator establish site-specific
parameter ranges for monitoring purposes through the Notification of
Compliance Status report and operating permit. Parameters selected are
required to be good indicators of continuous control device
performance.
In addition to testing and monitoring of emissions control
equipment, we are also proposing that the closed vent system that
routes emissions to control equipment be initially and annually tested
for HAP emissions leaks (i.e., a measurement greater than 500 ppmv. If
a leak is detected, we would require that you eliminate the leak and
monitor equipment (no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is
detected).
5. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
We are proposing notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that parallel the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), and requirements to document compliance that are similar to
those previously developed and used for similar emission points.
We are proposing that owners or operators of carbon black
production affected sources submit the following four types of reports:
(1) Initial Notification, (2) Notification of Compliance Status, (3)
periodic reports, and (4) other reports. Records of reported
information and other information necessary to document compliance with
the proposed NESHAP
[[Page 76422]]
would be required to be kept for 5 years. Equipment design records
would be required to be kept for the life of the equipment.
For the Initial Notification, we are proposing that you list the
carbon black production processes at your facility and the provisions
that may apply. The Initial Notification would also be required to
include a statement as to whether your facility can achieve compliance
by the specified compliance date. This notification would be required
to be submitted within 1 year after the date of promulgation for
existing sources, and within 180 days before commencement of
construction or reconstruction of an affected source.
For the Notification of Compliance Status report, we are proposing
that you submit the information necessary to demonstrate that
compliance has been achieved, such as the results of performance tests
and design analyses. We provide information on the requirements and
information to be provided to us for performance tests and other
methods of compliance determination for process vents and equipment.
For each test method used for a particular kind of emission point
(e.g., process vent), one complete test report would be required to be
submitted. This notification would also be required to include the
specific range for each monitored parameter for each emission point for
determining continuous compliance, and the rationale for why this range
indicates proper operation of the control device.
For periodic reports, we are proposing that you report periods when
the values of monitored parameters are outside the ranges established
in the Notification of Compliance Status report. For process vents,
records of continuously monitored parameters must be kept. For
equipment leaks, inspections and/or leak detection monitoring records
must be kept. These records would only be required to be submitted in
the periodic report if a leak is detected. We are proposing that these
reports be submitted semiannually, or quarterly if monitored parameter
values for a particular emission point are outside the established
range by a given percentage of the operating time.
Other reports that we are proposing to require include reports to
the regulatory authority before or after a specific event (e.g., if a
process change is made, requests for extension of repair period).
C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Carbon Black
Production
1. How Did EPA Select the Source Category?
We listed Carbon Black Production as a category of major sources of
HAP on June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197). We listed this category due to
potential emissions of carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and hydrogen
cyanide. When we originally listed the Carbon Black Production source
category, we stated that it included facilities that manufacture carbon
black using the channel, thermal, or furnace process (61 FR 28197). In
gathering and evaluating more extensive information on the production
of carbon black, we determined that the furnace black process is the
dominant production process utilized in this source category. The other
types of production processes we identified that are currently used in
the United States to produce carbon black are the thermal, acetylene,
and lampblack processes. Therefore, in our proposed definition of
carbon black production, we specify the furnace black, thermal,
acetylene, and lampblack processes.
The CAA allows us to define subcategories, or subsets of similar
emission sources within a source category, if technical differences in
emissions characteristics, processes, control device applicability, or
opportunities for pollution prevention exist within the source category
(57 FR 31576). Specific examples of these differences include the types
of products, process equipment differences, the type and level of
emission control, emissions sources, and any other factors that would
impact a MACT standard. We did not identify differences between the
four carbon black production processes included in the source category
that we believe meet the criteria presented above for
subcategorization. They all have the same basic unit operations, HAP
emission sources, and ability to control the HAP emissions. Thus, we
determined that it was not necessary to divide this source category
into subcategories.
2. How Did EPA Select the Affected Source?
The affected source is the group of unit operations, equipment, and
emission points that are subject to the proposed NESHAP. We can define
the affected source as narrowly as a single item of equipment or as
broadly as all equipment at the plant site that is used to manufacture
the carbon black product. The affected source defines the collection of
equipment that you would evaluate to determine whether replacement of
components at an existing affected source would qualify as a
reconstruction. If we define the affected source narrowly, it could
affect whether some parts of a process unit would be subject to new
source requirements or existing source requirements. We are proposing
the same requirements for existing and new sources for carbon black
production emission points. Therefore, the only implication for
narrowly defining the carbon black production affected source would be
when the source would have to comply with the standards.
We selected the process unit that manufactures carbon black as the
foundation for the affected source. We defined the carbon black
production process unit as the collection of equipment, assembled and
connected by hard-piping or duct work, that is used to process raw
material to manufacture the carbon black product. We evaluated the
potential HAP emission sources at carbon black production facilities
and determined that most HAP emissions occur from a single point. This
point is the process vent from the main unit filter, which includes the
``tailgas'' from the reactor, along with miscellaneous streams from
other unit operations.
Based on the available information, we concluded that HAP emissions
from storage vessels, equipment leaks, and wastewater were not
significant. In fact, no HAP emissions or HAP emission controls were
reported by industry for storage vessels and wastewater at any carbon
black facility. Therefore, we have not included storage vessels and
wastewater streams as part of the affected source.
In summary, we are proposing that the affected source for carbon
black production include each carbon production process unit located at
a major source, including all process vents from the main unit filter,
and equipment (i.e., connectors, pumps, valves) after the reactor that
contains or contacts HAP that are associated with the carbon black
production process unit.
3. How Did EPA Determine the Basis and Level of The Proposed NESHAP for
Existing and New Sources?
Eight companies operate 22 carbon black production facilities in
the United States. For a source category with under 30 sources, section
112(d)(3) of the CAA directs that the MACT floor for existing sources
be based on the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing five sources. The MACT floor for new sources in a source
[[Page 76423]]
category is required to reflect the level of control being achieved by
the best controlled similar source. The term ``average'' is not defined
in the CAA. On June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29196), we announced our conclusion
that Congress intended ``average,'' as used in section 112(d)(3), to be
the mean, median, mode, or some other measure of central tendency. We
also concluded that we retain substantial discretion within the
statutory framework to set MACT floors at appropriate levels, and that
we construe the word ``average'' (as used in section 112(d)(3)) to
authorize us to use any reasonable method, in a particular factual
context, of determining the central tendency of a data set.
We chose the median as the measure of central tendency in our MACT
floor analysis for process vents and equipment after the reactor for
existing sources. We chose the median because the arithmetic mean
resulted in a level of control that did not correspond to any actual
control technology. Using a median allowed us to select a MACT floor
level of control that corresponds to the level of control represented
by an existing control device. Additionally, since our MACT floor
analysis consisted of data from only 22 facilities, choosing the mode
as the measure of central tendency did not make sense, since the mode
is more appropriately used when there is a large data set.
One decision that we must make is how to ``group'' emission sources
in the MACT floor analysis. We often separate emission sources into
groups by emission source type (e.g., tanks, process vents, fugitive
emission sources). For the Carbon Black Production source category, we
identified the process vent from the main unit filter as a group for
purposes of determining MACT.
For process vents from the main unit filter, we determined the MACT
floor for existing sources to be a 98-weight-percent HAP emission
reduction. This floor level of control represents the five best
performing facilities that achieved the highest level of emissions
reductions and had the lowest reported uncontrolled (inlet) total HAP
concentrations (considering vent flow rate) for the main unit filter
process vent. Since all combustion devices in our database achieve a
98-weight-percent HAP emission reduction, we based the best controlled
facilities on those facilities that control the lowest inlet
concentration streams (considering vent flow rate). We believe, based
on engineering judgement, that these low uncontrolled (inlet) total HAP
concentrations represent the most difficult main unit filter process
vent emission streams to control in the Carbon Black Production source
category.
For process vents from the main unit filter, we were unable to
identify a method of control in practice that would achieve a greater
level of HAP emissions control than the MACT floor levels for existing
sources. Therefore, we determined that the MACT floor for new sources
for process vents from the main unit filter is the same as the MACT
floor for existing sources (i.e., a 98-weight-percent HAP emission
reduction).
For process vents from the main unit filter, we estimated and
evaluated the impacts of above-the-floor options for existing and new
sources. We did not identify a viable above-the-floor option for
process vents from the main unit filter for existing or new sources.
Therefore, we are proposing that MACT for process vents from the main
unit filter for existing and new sources is the level of control
represented by the MACT floor (i.e., a 98-percent HAP emission
reduction).
In our evaluation of control options for carbon black facilities
for process vents after the main unit filter, we determined that the
MACT floor for existing and new sources is no control. This floor level
of control represents the five best performing facilities that achieved
the highest level of emissions reductions and had the lowest reported
uncontrolled (inlet) total HAP concentrations (considering vent flow
rate) for process vents after the main unit filter. Four of the five
facilities did not indicate any air emissions control after the main
unit filter. One facility reported process modifications that reduce
the residual HAP levels in the process after the main unit filter by 98
weight-percent. Since this facility's level of control does not
correspond to a control type, we determined that the MACT floor for
both existing and new sources was no control.
We estimated and evaluated the impacts of above-the-floor options
for process vents after the main unit filter. We evaluated controlling
process vents after the main unit filter to 98 weight-percent as an
above-the-floor option. We determined that the cost effectiveness of
this option is unreasonable. Therefore, we selected the MACT floor
level of control for process vents located after the main unit filter
process to be MACT (i.e., no control).
In determining MACT for process vents, we considered whether it was
appropriate to apply a 98 weight-percent emission reduction requirement
to all process vents from main unit filters. We determined that for
low-concentration streams (i.e., streams with concentrations less than
around 1,000 ppmv), a 98 weight-percent reduction may not be achievable
for all process vents from the main unit filter. Therefore, we are
proposing an alternative to the 98 weight-percent reduction requirement
for main unit filter process vents at existing and new affected
sources. This alternative standard is a HAP or total organic compound
(TOC) concentration limit of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if
a combustion device is the control device and supplemental combustion
air is used to combust the emissions), which we have determined is a
reasonable level achievable for low-concentration streams.
In determining MACT for process vents from the main unit filter, we
also selected a control applicability cutoff for existing and new
sources, below which the vent would not be subject to control
requirements. We selected an applicability cutoff for existing and new
sources that represents the lowest inlet concentration reported at one
of the best controlled facilities. The proposed cutoff is 260 ppmv.
The standards that we are proposing for process vents from the main
unit filter in the carbon black production source category have various
forms. These forms consist of a combination of emission standards and
equipment, design, work practice, and operational requirements
consistent with requirements promulgated for similar emission points
and emission characteristics. For process vent streams controlled by
control devices other than a flare, we selected the form of a numerical
emission limitation (a weight-percent reduction and a concentration).
This form was chosen based on the controls used at carbon black
facilities and the data available for our MACT analysis.
For vent streams controlled by a flare, we selected a form
consisting of equipment and operating specifications, consistent with
the form for flare requirements that we have specified for other
industries. This is because it is very difficult to measure the
emissions from a flare to determine its efficiency.
4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements?
We selected the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, UU, and YY to demonstrate
and document compliance with the carbon black production standards. The
procedures and methods set out in these subparts are, where
appropriate, based
[[Page 76424]]
on procedures and methods that we previously developed for use in
implementing standards for emission point sources similar to those
being proposed for the Carbon Black Production source category.
General compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that would apply across source categories and affected
emission points are contained within 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY (i.e.,
Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1113). We specify the applicability assessment
procedures necessary to determine whether an emission point is required
to apply controls. These procedures are dependent on the emission point
for which control applicability needs to be assessed and the form of
the applicability cutoff selected for an individual source category
(e.g., a HAP concentration cutoff level, above which control is
required).
We selected monitoring (including continuous monitoring),
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements included under common control
requirement subparts promulgated for equipment leaks (40 CFR part 63,
subpart UU), and closed vent systems, control devices, recovery devices
and routing to a fuel gas system or a process (40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS). These subparts contain a common set of monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements. We established these subparts to ensure
consistency of the air emission requirements applied to similar
emission points with pollutant streams containing gaseous organic HAP.
The rationale for the establishment of these subparts and requirements
contained within each subpart is presented in the proposal preamble for
the source category requirements previously promulgated under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart YY (63 FR 55186-55191).
The compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, UU, and YY, are
appropriate for demonstrating and documenting compliance with the
requirements proposed for the Carbon Black Production source category.
This is because these requirements were established for standards with
similar forms and similar emission points, and with pollutant streams
of gaseous organic HAP for which we are requiring MACT compliance
demonstration and documentation under this proposal.
D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
For the Carbon Black Production source category, we estimate that
the proposed NESHAP would reduce HAP emissions by 1830 Mg/yr (2,020
TPY). This is a 26 percent reduction from the total baseline HAP
emissions for this source category and a 95 percent reduction for those
facilities that would be required to install controls to meet the
standards.
We estimate that the proposed NESHAP for the Carbon Black
Production source category would reduce CO emissions by 474,000 Mg/yr
(522,000 TPY), VOC by 16,900 Mg/yr (18,600 TPY), hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) by 10,300 Mg/yr (11,300 TPY), and PM by 740 Mg/yr (820
TPY). We estimate that the proposed NESHAP would increase
SOX emissions by 32,900 Mg/yr (36,200 TPY) and
NOX by 1,140 Mg/yr (1,260 TPY) as a result of on-site
combustion of fossil fuels. However, the air quality benefits of the
proposed NESHAP (i.e., reductions in HAP, CO, VOC, and H2S
emissions) outweigh the negative impacts associated with the
anticipated increases in emissions of SOX and
NOX.
2. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
The total estimated capital cost of the proposed NESHAP for the
Carbon Black Production source category is $54.9 million. The total
estimated annual cost of the proposed NESHAP is $10.6 million. These
costs represent fourth quarter 1998 dollars.
We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the impacts
these proposed NESHAP would have on the carbon black production market,
consumers, and society. The total annualized social cost (in 1997
dollars) of the proposed NESHAP to the industry is $10.6 million, which
is less than 0.001 percent of total baseline revenue for the affected
sources. A screening analysis suggests only one of the firms affected
by the proposed NESHAP would experience costs in excess of 1 percent of
sales, and no firm would experience costs in excess of 1.5 percent of
sales. For this reason, we believe the impact of the proposed NESHAP
will be minimal. We expect no facility closures as a result of the
proposed NESHAP.
3. What Are the Nonair Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
We believe that there would not be significant adverse nonair
health, environmental or energy impacts associated with the proposed
NESHAP for the Carbon Black Production source category. This is
supported by impacts analyses associated with the application of the
control and recovery devices required under the proposed NESHAP. We
determine impacts relative to the baseline that is set at the level of
control in absence of the proposed NESHAP.
There are no water pollution and solid waste impacts from the use
of air emission control devices in the Carbon Black Production source
category. An increase in energy consumption will result from the use of
combustion control systems. We estimate that the Carbon Black
Production source category will consume an additional 186 million cubic
feet of natural gas per year to meet the regulatory requirements of the
proposed NESHAP. This would represent an increase in total domestic
natural gas consumption of less than 1/100th of one percent.
E. Solicitation of Comments
Representatives of the carbon black industry have expressed concern
with requirements in the proposed NESHAP to monitor for leaks from air
stream conveyance systems. Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, we are
requiring facility owners/operators to monitor for HAP leaks from
connectors and other equipment involved in the conveyance of HAP
containing air emission streams required to be controlled by the
proposed NESHAP.
Industry concern so far has centered around two issues: (1) That
the large amount of nitrogen in carbon black facility air streams may
provide false positive readings; and (2) that EPA Method 21 (the
required test method) may not detect the nonorganic HAP present in the
gas stream for a carbon black facility and, therefore, may not be an
effective monitoring procedure. We are soliciting further industry
comments and data on these two issues in order to more effectively
address them in the final NESHAP.
Many carbon black production facilities use flares to control HAP
emissions. The flares used by the industry are commonly called hydrogen
flares due to the presence of large amounts of hydrogen in emission
streams being controlled. On May 4, 1998, we published a direct final
rule (63 FR 24436) to add operating requirements designed to ensure
that a 98 weight-percent destruction of organic HAP and VOC is achieved
by hydrogen flares. We are aware that some members of the carbon black
industry use flare designs that differ from the flare type used to
establish our current requirements for hydrogen flares. While some
industry flares may not meet our current operating procedures, they
[[Page 76425]]
might meet the required 98 weight-percent level required by the
proposed NESHAP.
We are soliciting test data collected by industry that would show
that flare types used by the carbon black industry achieve 98 weight-
percent control. If we determine the data submitted to be adequate, a
revision to the hydrogen flare requirements could be promulgated. This
revision potentially would allow the use of certain flares meeting the
required destruction efficiency, yet operating outside of the
parameters we established in the May 4, 1998, Federal Register notice
to be used to meet the requirements of the proposed NESHAP.
IV. Ethylene Production
A. Introduction
1. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
The following emission types (i.e., emission points) are the
primary sources of emissions being covered by the proposed NESHAP:
Equipment (including pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices,
valves, and connectors); storage vessels; transfer racks; process
vents; heat exchange systems; and waste operations. We address
pyrolysis furnaces and decoking operations, but there are no specific
control requirements for these two emission types.
A variety of HAP are emitted during the ethylene manufacturing
process. The HAP emitted by the facilities covered by the proposed
NESHAP include benzene, 1,3 butadiene, toluene, naphthalene, hexane,
and xylene. The proposed standards regulate emissions of these
compounds, as well as other incidental organic HAP that are emitted
during the manufacture of ethylene.
2. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the HAP Emitted?
The data available to us indicate that the primary HAP emitted by
ethylene manufacturing are benzene and 1,3 butadiene. Emissions of
benzene and 1,3 butadiene are more than 80 percent of the total HAP
emissions from the manufacture of ethylene/propylene. The HAP that
would be controlled with today's proposed NESHAP are associated with a
variety of adverse health effects.
Benzene. Acute (short-term) exposure to benzene in air can cause
dizziness, headaches, and unconsciousness. Exposure to high levels of
benzene can result in death. Lower concentrations may irritate the
skin, eyes, and lungs. Chronic (long-term) exposure to benzene in
occupational settings has caused various disorders in the blood,
including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia.
Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white
blood cells) has been observed in workers exposed to benzene. The EPA
has classified benzene as a Group A, known human carcinogen.
1,3 butadiene. Acute inhalation of 1,3 butadiene results in
irritation of the eyes, nasal passages, throat, and lungs, and causes
neurological effects such as blurred vision, fatigue, headache, and
vertigo. Epidemiological studies have reported a possible association
between chronic 1,3 butadiene exposure and cardiovascular diseases.
Animal studies have reported the development of tumors following
inhalation exposure to 1,3 butadiene. The EPA has classified 1,3
butadiene as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen.
The effects of these HAP vary in severity based on the level and
length of exposure and are influenced by 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. To the extent the
adverse effects do occur, the proposed NESHAP will substantially reduce
emissions and exposures to the level achievable with MACT. The
seriousness of risks remaining after impositions of the final MACT
standards will be examined at a later date, as provided for under
section 112(f) of the CAA.
B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Ethylene Production
1. What Is the Source Category To Be Regulated?
There are 37 ethylene production plants operating in the United
States. We estimate that 30 or more facilities are major sources. The
proposed NESHAP apply to all major sources that produce ethylene. Final
determination of major source status occurs as part of the compliance
determination process undertaken by each individual source. Area
sources are not subject to the proposed NESHAP.
The Ethylene Production source category includes any facility which
manufactures ethylene as a primary product or an intermediate product.
Ethylene is produced by either a pyrolysis process (hydrocarbons
subjected to high temperatures in the presence of steam) or by
separation from a petroleum refining stream. The ethylene production
process includes the separation of ethylene from associated streams
such as product made from compounds composed of four carbon atoms (C4),
pyrolysis gasoline, and pyrolysis fuel oil. The ethylene production
process does not include the manufacture of synthetic organic
chemicals, such as the production of butadiene from the C4 stream and
aromatics from pyrolysis gasoline. Propylene is often produced as a
product during the ethylene production process, but the separation of
propylene from a refinery gas stream does not in itself cause the
process unit or the equipment used for the separation to be included in
this source category.
In addition to ethylene and propylene, other products from an
ethylene manufacturing process unit (EMPU) may include, but are not
limited to: (1) Hydrogen and methane containing streams, (2) ethane and
propane streams, (3) mixed C4+ pyrolysis products, (4) pyrolysis fuel
oil, and (5) specialty products such as acetylene and methylacetylene-
propadiene. For purposes of discussion in this preamble, the term
ethylene will be used to describe the source category and the
associated process unit equipment even though other products, such as
propylene, may be produced in addition to and in greater or lesser
quantities than ethylene.
2. What Is the Affected Source?
We have defined the affected source to include each EMPU, along
with associated process equipment (including storage vessels, process
vents, transfer racks, waste streams, piping, and heat exchange
systems) located at a plant site that is a major source as defined in
section 112(a) of the CAA. The affected source does not include
associated equipment that does not contain HAP, stormwater from
segregated sewers, water from firefighting and deluge systems in
segregated sewers, water from testing deluge systems, water from safety
showers, spills, storage vessels and transfer racks that contain
organic HAP as impurities, or vapor balancing transfer equipment. We
define EMPU as a process unit specifically utilized for the production
of ethylene/propylene including all separation and purification
processes. The affected source does not include pieces of equipment
currently included in other source categories.
3. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards?
The following discussion briefly summarizes the proposed control
requirements for the affected emission types.
[[Page 76426]]
a. Equipment leaks. The equipment leak emission type represents
emissions from specific components within the ethylene manufacturing
process. These components include pumps, compressors, pressure relief
devices, gas valves, light liquid valves, heavy liquid valves, and
connectors. For equipment containing or contacting HAP in amounts of 5
percent or greater, HAP emissions are required to be controlled through
the implementation of LDAR program for affected equipment. Monitoring
frequency is based on the percent of leaking equipment. Requirements
are the same for both existing and new sources.
b. Process vents. For process vents from continuous unit operations
having an average flow rate greater than or equal to 0.008 standard
cubic meters per minute (scmm) and an average HAP concentration of 30
ppmv or greater, HAP emissions are required to be controlled by routing
emissions through a closed vent system to one of the following: (1) A
flare, or (2) an enclosed combustion device that reduces HAP emissions
by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3
percent oxygen if a combustion device is the control device and
supplemental combustion air is used to combust the emissions). Recovery
devices can be used in certain situations to meet the 98 weight-percent
reduction or 20 ppmv requirement. Requirements are the same for both
existing and new sources.
c. Storage Vessels. For storage vessels storing liquid containing
HAP and having a vapor pressure greater than or equal to 3.4
kilopascals (0.5 pounds per square inch absolute (psia)) but less than
76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia), requirements are based on capacity. For
storage vessels with capacity greater than 4 cubic meters (1,000
gallons) but less than 95 cubic meters (25,000 gallons), HAP emissions
are required to be controlled by filling the vessel through a submerged
pipe or by complying with the requirements for storage vessels with
capacities greater than or equal to 95 cubic meters (25,000 gallons).
For storage vessels with capacity of 95 cubic meters (25,000 gallons)
or more, HAP emissions are required to be controlled by equipping the
vessel with an internal floating roof or external floating roof with
seals and controlled fittings or by routing emissions through a closed
vent system to a flare, a fuel gas system or process, or a control
device that reduces HAP emissions by 95 weight-percent. Vessels storing
materials with vapor pressures of 11 psia or greater must be equipped
with a closed vent system routed to a flare or control device that
reduces HAP emissions by 95 weight-percent. Requirements are the same
for both existing and new sources.
d. Transfer Racks. For transfer racks loading 76 cubic meters
(20,000 gallons) or more per day of HAP-containing material (averaged
over any consecutive 30-day period) and having a vapor pressure greater
than or equal to 3.4 kilopascals (0.5 psia), HAP emissions are required
to be controlled by equipping the transfer rack with one of the
following: (1) A closed vent system designed to collect the regulated
material displaced during loading and route it to a flare or other
control device that reduces HAP emissions by 98 weight-percent or to a
concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion
device is the control device and supplemental combustion air is used to
combust the emissions), or (2) process piping designed to collect the
regulated material displaced during loading and route it to a process,
a fuel gas system, or a vapor balance system. Requirements are the same
for both existing and new sources.
e. Heat Exchange Systems. The HAP emissions from heat exchange
systems occur when a leak in a heat exchanger allows HAP to be
introduced to the cooling water and released when the cooling water is
exposed to the atmosphere. The HAP emissions are required to be
controlled by implementing procedures to monitor cooling water and
repair equipment upon detection of a leak. Cooling water is monitored
monthly for heat exchange systems at existing sources and weekly for
heat exchange systems at new sources.
f. Waste Operations. To control emissions from waste streams, HAP
in the stream must be reduced by 99 weight-percent or to 10 ppmv. The
HAP reduction of 99 weight-percent must be achieved using suppression
followed by steam stripping, biotreatment, or other treatment
processes. Vents from steam strippers and other waste management or
treatment units are required to be controlled by a control device
achieving 98 weight-percent emission reduction or 20 ppmv (corrected to
3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the control device and
supplemental combustion air is used to combust the emissions) at the
outlet of the control device. The term ``waste'' includes wastewater
streams. This term is used because the proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart
XX, references the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP (BWON) for
controlling emissions from wastes (including wastewater). Requirements
are the same for both existing and new sources.
As discussed later in this preamble, the requirements for waste
operations are based on the BWON. The BWON includes three compliance
options in addition to the standard requirements. These compliance
options are not included in the requirements for ethylene production
sources. The BWON compliance options set limits based on a total annual
benzene (TAB) quantity. Because the requirements for ethylene
production sources are for controlling HAP emissions, requirements
including a TAB quantity would not be appropriate. We do not have
adequate data to convert the TAB limits into HAP emission limits.
Additionally, calculation of such a quantity is a complicated and time-
consuming process. In complying with the BWON, a TAB quantity is
calculated regardless of the compliance option selected because a TAB
quantity is used to determine overall applicability of the BWON. No
such quantity is needed for the ethylene production waste requirements
because they apply to all ethylene production sources located at major
sources. Excluding the compliance options simplifies the requirements
for ethylene production sources by not requiring a TAB or a HAP-based
quantity to be calculated.
4. What Are the Testing, Monitoring, Inspection, Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements?
The testing, monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements specified in the proposed NESHAP are used to assure and
document compliance with the standards. The testing, monitoring,
inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements included in the
proposed NESHAP are based on such requirements that we previously
developed for sources similar to those for which standards are being
proposed today. The testing, monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for each emission type are based on those in the
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP, the BWON, the HON, and/or other rules as
appropriate. These testing, monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements are the same as the generic standards for
storage vessels (40 CFR part 63, subpart WW); equipment leaks (40 CFR
part 63, subparts TT and UU); and process vents (40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS).
As discussed later in this preamble, the proposed 40 CFR part 63,
subpart XX, specifies that monitoring of HAP concentration in waste
streams after treatment or process parameters that indicate proper
operation of treatment
[[Page 76427]]
systems must be conducted continuously. Facilities that currently
perform concentration monitoring of waste streams do so on a monthly
basis as required by the BWON. We do not believe that monthly
concentration monitoring is sufficient to ensure continuous compliance.
Rules developed under section 112 of the CAA include monitoring
strategies that incorporate the concepts of enhanced monitoring that
were established in section 114(a)(3) of the CAA. This approach is
designed to ensure that monitoring procedures developed for section 112
standards provide data that can be used to determine compliance with
applicable standards, including emission standards on a continual
basis. Since the waste requirements of the proposed 40 CFR part 63,
subpart XX, primarily refer to provisions in 40 CFR part 61, subpart
FF, that were developed prior to the CAA Amendments, the provisions do
not ensure that monitoring data are available to prove compliance on a
continual basis in all cases. Therefore, today's proposal requires
either continuous monitoring of HAP concentration of the waste stream
exiting the treatment process or continuous monitoring of process
parameters for the waste treatment process/unit that would indicate
proper system operation. Facilities that comply with the monitoring
requirements of the proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart XX, are not
required to comply with the monitoring requirements of the BWON.
5. What Are the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements?
The startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements included in the
proposed NESHAP are, where appropriate, based on startup, shutdown, and
malfunction requirements developed for the part 63 General Provisions
and previously incorporated in 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. Subpart YY
requires that minimization of emissions from startup, shutdown, and
malfunctions be addressed in a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
The plan must also establish reporting and recordkeeping of such
events. The existing startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements
have been reviewed and were determined to be appropriate for ethylene
production sources.
Also, during development of the proposed NESHAP, we determined that
decoking is a shutdown activity and will be addressed through a
facility's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The decoking
process is similar to other shutdown activities as defined in subpart
YY. Including decoking in a facility's startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan will require owners and operators of an EMPU to
include procedures for decoking that will minimize emissions. By
including decoking as a shutdown activity, owners and operators will be
afforded flexibility in addressing decoking emissions while ensuring
that they will be minimized.
6. How Are the Proposed NESHAP Related to Other Rules?
We recognize that the potential exists for regulatory overlap
between the proposed NESHAP and other rules previously developed under
the CAA. Therefore, we have clarified the applicability of 40 CFR part
63, subpart YY, as it relates to other 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63
rules that apply to ethylene production sources in the general
applicability section of the proposed NESHAP (Sec. 63.1100). Areas of
overlap may occur with other NESHAP applicable to storage vessels,
process vents, transfer operations, and equipment leaks, such as 40 CFR
part 60, subparts Ka, Kb, VV, NNN, and RRR; 40 CFR part 61, subpart V;
and 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
The requirements for equipment leaks, storage vessels, process
vents, and transfer racks are similar to the requirements for these
emission types under both the HON and the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP.
Thus, we expect that most ethylene manufacturing facilities are
currently implementing many of the proposed requirements for a process
unit at the plant site, which will lessen the burden to owners and
operators. In addition, the proposed monitoring, recordkeeping,
reporting, and testing requirements are also similar to those required
by the HON and the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP.
Further, the proposed NESHAP reference several other subparts which
have established requirements for equipment leaks, storage vessels,
process vents, and waste operations. We made the decision to reference
other subparts in order to expedite the rulemaking process and to
encourage standardization of requirements for facilities subject to
numerous NESHAP. It is not our intent to broadly apply standards that
have been promulgated previously by the Agency without thorough
consideration of the appropriateness of such an approach. We determined
the appropriate standards for each emission type at ethylene
manufacturing facilities prior to making the decision to reference
other subparts for emission control standards.
C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Ethylene
Production
1. How Did EPA Select the Source Category?
In the early listing of source categories, we intended to regulate
ethylene processes with the SOCMI. We did not do this because we had
insufficient data to support that ethylene processes and SOCMI
processes were similar sources for MACT determination. The ethylene
processes were, therefore, specifically not covered by NESHAP for the
SOCMI source category (HON). Consequently, we listed ethylene processes
as a separate category of major sources of HAP on June 4, 1996 (61 FR
28197).
2. How Did EPA Select the Affected Source?
We determined the affected source by first recognizing that
ethylene manufacturing processes generally exist as a follow-on
chemical process to petroleum refining and as a precursor to the
production of other chemicals, most of them SOCMI chemicals. Concerned
about overlap, we considered the combination of equipment used in the
manufacture of ethylene, and the associated by-products and co-
products, as the subject of this proposal, from the point at which feed
stocks from refinery processes are received by an EMPU to the point
where chemical product streams are either received by a unit covered by
another MACT standard, like the HON, or leave the manufacturing site as
product or waste. Not all streams in the affected source contain HAP,
and the primary products of the EMPU are typically ethylene and
propylene, neither of which are HAP. Hence, not all streams required
control, only those containing HAP. To simplify the process of
determining where to apply controls, the following emission types
(i.e., emission points) were identified as the sources of emissions
within the EMPU: Equipment (including pumps, compressors, pressure
relief devices, valves, and connectors); storage vessels; transfer
racks; process vents; heat exchange systems; and waste operations. We
also identified pyrolysis furnaces and decoking operations, but there
are no specific control requirements for these two emission types.
3. How Did EPA Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed NESHAP for
Existing and New Sources?
We are aware of 36 existing facilities in this source category, 31
of which are located in just two States, Texas and Louisiana. Although
we surveyed only
[[Page 76428]]
11 of the facilities in Texas and Louisiana, the MACT levels of control
were relatively predictable and largely driven by existing State
programs.
For this source category, the selection of the best performing
facilities upon which to determine the MACT floor used a point value
approach, whereby the floor decisions were driven by the facilities
that have the best LDAR program for equipment leaks. The information we
collected indicates that equipment leaks are the largest source of HAP
emissions at ethylene affected sources.
To determine the existing MACT floor using the point value
approach, it was necessary to determine the emission limitations
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of sources (i.e., five
facilities) in the ethylene manufacturing industry. The five best
performing facilities were determined on a facilitywide basis. For each
emission type (equipment leaks, storage vessels, waste operations, heat
exchange systems, process vents, and transfer racks), information on
the control devices and emission reduction techniques in place at each
facility was used to identify the most controlled sources. A ``point
system'' was used to rank the facilities in order of most to least
controlled. Facilities received points for each emission type for which
they were among the best controlled. The points received for an
emission type were weighted based on the relative contribution to total
emissions to reflect the impact that control of the emission type has
on the total emissions from a facility. All points for a facility were
totaled. The facilities with the five highest point totals are
considered to be the best performing overall sources.
After we identified the top five performing sources, we used the
information on the emission reduction techniques and control devices in
place at those facilities to determine the ``average'' emission
limitation achieved for each emission type. For each emission type, the
five best performing facilities were ranked, in order of emission
limitation achieved. The MACT floor for existing sources is the
emission limitation achieved by the median facility. For EMPU emission
types, determining the median reduction achieved, rather than the
arithmetic mean, was found to be the most appropriate approach, since
the median is associated with specific control technologies. The MACT
floor for new sources is the emission limitation achieved by the best
performing facility.
Although the five best performing facilities were determined on a
facilitywide basis, it is important to note that this analysis does not
result in a facilitywide level of emission reduction that is being
achieved by the best performing sources. Adequate information,
specifically data on emissions before control techniques are applied,
is not available to estimate facilitywide emissions reductions. It is
unlikely that an accurate measure of the emission limitations achieved
could be made. It is even less likely that such a limit could be used
as the basis for a rule. Typically, MACT rules refer to a control
device or practice as the basis of the standards because the MACT floor
and MACT must be technically achievable. This would not be possible if
an estimated facilitywide emission reduction was used as the basis for
the standards. Additional information on selection of the five best
performing facilities and documentation on the MACT floor methodology
and determination of MACT is included in Docket No. A-98-22.
As a check against whether we had properly identified the
appropriate MACT floor level of control for the other HAP emission
source types (i.e., storage vessels, process vents, wastewaters,
cooling water, and furnaces), we then independently evaluated the best
level of performance for each emission type. In other words, we
performed a cursory analysis using the ``plank-type'' approach in
determining the floor for these other emission types, as described in
the preamble of the HON (59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994). We did not need
to reevaluate equipment leak best performers since our point value
approach already emphasized best performing LDAR programs.
To further verify that we had made the right floor selections, we
visited the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission to review
the permits for the facilities in Texas and were able to confirm that
the Texas facilities among the 11 surveyed are the best performing
facilities in Texas. We also found that the levels of controls for all
of these emission source types were a function of compliance with
either Texas or Louisiana permit conditions, NSPS for Air Oxidation
and/or SOCMI Distillation (40 CFR part 60, subparts III and NNN), or
the Benzene Waste NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF). Since the best
performing sources within each emission source type that we identified
through the point value approach were the sources complying with the
most stringent applicable State or Federal requirements, we concluded
that we would arrive at the same MACT floor level of control for each
emission source type through either the point value approach or through
the ``plank-type'' approach. A detailed discussion of the determination
of the MACT floor and MACT for each emission type follows.
a. Process Vents. To establish the MACT floor for process vents, we
determined both the level of control required and the vents to which
control must be applied. All vents at the best performing facilities
are being controlled using a flare or other combustion device. It is
generally accepted that combustion devices achieve a 98 weight-percent
reduction in HAP emissions; therefore, this is the MACT floor level of
control for both new and existing sources.
Only two of the best performing facilities reported having any
process vents, and the volumetric flow rates and HAP concentrations of
the vents are not known. The information available was supplemented
with information from the regulations and the permit condition with
which the two facilities are complying in order to determine the
applicability criteria for control. These requirements include: Texas
regulation 30 Texas Air Control (TAC) Chapter 115 Subchapter B; 40 CFR
part 60, subparts NNN and RRR. These regulations and the applicable
permit condition all require the same level of control: Reduction of
organic compounds by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20
ppmv. The only differences in the applicable requirements are the
cutoffs for determining whether control is required.
Both facilities that reported having vents are subject to the Texas
regulation, whereas only one facility is subject to the requirements of
40 CFR part 60, subparts NNN and RRR. Therefore, the requirements of
the Texas regulation are considered to represent the median level of
control. The Texas regulation provides both a VOC concentration and
flow rate cutoff for vents that must be controlled. The regulation
requires that vents with a flow rate greater than or equal to 0.011
scmm and a VOC concentration greater than or equal to 500 ppmv must be
controlled. Based on vent composition data provided by the surveyed
facilities, approximately 10 percent of the VOC in process vent streams
are HAP. Thus, we determined that the MACT floor for existing sources
is to control process vents with a flow rate greater than or equal to
0.011 scmm and a HAP concentration greater than or equal to 50 ppmv by
reducing HAP emissions by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20
ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the
control device and supplemental
[[Page 76429]]
combustion air is used to combust the emissions).
For new sources, the most stringent applicable regulation is the
basis for the control applicability cutoffs. Subpart NNN requires vents
with a flow rate greater than or equal to 0.008 scmm to be controlled.
Subpart NNN of 40 CFR part 63 does not specify a concentration cutoff,
but analysis of vents that are required to be controlled based on the
total resource effectiveness index indicated that vents with TOC
concentrations less than 300 ppmv are not likely to be required to be
controlled (see the memorandum ``Process Vent Applicability Criteria''
in the Consolidated Federal Air Rule Docket A-96-01 for a discussion of
this analysis). Because it is assumed that TOC content is approximately
equal to VOC content for ethylene vents and that 10 percent of the VOC
in these process vent streams are HAP, the MACT floor for new sources
is to control process vents with a HAP concentration greater than or
equal to 30 ppmv and a flow rate greater than or equal to 0.008 scmm by
reducing HAP emissions by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20
ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the
control device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust the
emissions).
More stringent applicability cutoffs for control of process vents
were considered in identifying above-the-floor options for both new and
existing sources. One option more stringent than the MACT floor for new
sources is to lower the flow rate control applicability criteria to
0.005 scmm as used in the HON. This cutoff is not significantly
different than the new source MACT floor cutoff. Considering that there
are so few process vents at ethylene manufacturing facilities, it is
unlikely that many additional vents would be controlled or that
additional emissions reductions would be achieved by lowering the
cutoff. Therefore, the applicability criteria for the new source MACT
level of control are the same as the new source MACT floor level of
control.
For existing sources, the control applicability criteria for the
new source MACT were considered as an above-the-floor option. Because
there are relatively few process vents at ethylene manufacturing
facilities and the difference between the existing source MACT floor
and new source MACT is so small, it is unlikely that many additional
vents, if any, would be required to be controlled if the new source
applicability criteria are used. Therefore, it is expected that there
will be minimal to no difference in the cost of controls. We believe
that the benefit of simplifying the proposed NESHAP by having the same
control applicability cutoffs for process vents at new and existing
sources greatly simplifies the requirements for vents and outweighs any
additional cost. Thus, we determined that the process vent component of
MACT is the same for existing sources as it is for new sources.
We do not have adequate data to prove this assumption and are
soliciting comments and data to: (1) Support or refute the assumption
that there are few vents with flow rates between 0.008 and 0.011 scmm
and HAP concentrations between 30 and 50 ppmv, (2) aid in estimating
the cost of controlling these vents if they do exist, and (3) support
or refute that there is a benefit associated with simplifying the
proposed NESHAP.
b. Storage Vessels. For storage vessel emissions, the five best
performing facilities were ranked in order of the emissions reductions
achieved through control equipment to determine the median facility. In
establishing the storage vessel component of the MACT floor, we also
determined the vessels to which controls would be applied.
It was not possible to construct the entire storage vessel
component of the MACT floor based on the vessels at the median facility
because it does not represent the full range of vapor pressures of
stored materials or sizes of storage vessels. Additional information
was obtained from applicable regulations and permit conditions. We
determined that control requirements apply to storage vessels
containing liquids with vapor pressures greater than or equal to 3.4
kilopascals (0.5 psia) and less than 76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The
level of control is based on storage vessel size. For storage vessels
with capacities greater than 4 cubic meters (1,000 gallons) and less
than 95 cubic meters (25,000 gallons), a submerged pipe must be used
for filling the vessel unless more stringent controls are in place. For
storage vessels with capacities greater than or equal to 95 cubic
meters (25,000 gallons), the following equipment comprises the MACT
floor at existing sources:
An internal floating roof (IFR), an external floating roof
(EFR), or fixed roof with a closed vent system routed to a process,
fuel gas system, or control device.
If the vessel has an IFR, a mechanical shoe or liquid-
mounted primary seal, or a vapor-mounted primary seal with a rim-
mounted secondary seal.
If the vessel has an EFR, a mechanical shoe or liquid-
mounted primary and rim-mounted secondary seal.
If the vessel has a vapor recovery system routed to a
control device, the device must control HAP emissions by 95 weight-
percent.
Covers and gaskets on all access hatches, which are to be
bolted.
The overall storage control efficiency for the two sources that
perform better than the median facility was considered in determining
the new source storage vessel component of the MACT floor. Storage
vessels at the best performing facilities have the same control as the
median facility except that all fittings on most of the storage vessels
are controlled.
Requirements can be made more stringent than the existing source
storage vessel component of the MACT floor by requiring controls that
achieve a higher control efficiency. We determined that for vessels
with capacities greater than or equal to 95 cubic meters (25,000
gallons), the MACT level of control for existing sources is the MACT
floor level of control with the addition of control for all fittings.
This determination is based on a reasonable incremental cost
effectiveness for the addition of controlled fittings. We determined
that it is more cost effective to implement control of all fittings
than it is to implement the storage vessel component of the MACT floor
requirements alone. No options more stringent than the MACT floor for
new sources were identified. Therefore, the MACT level of control for
new sources is the same as the MACT level of control for existing
sources.
c. Transfer Racks. Only one of the best performing facilities has
transfer racks, and emissions are not controlled. Due to the limited
amount of information available, it is not possible to address how
transfer of different materials or at different rates would be
controlled by the best performing facilities using only survey
responses. For this reason, we supplemented the survey response data
with information from an applicable State regulation. The control
requirements of Texas regulation 30 TAC Chapter 115 Subchapter C,
Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations, Loading and Unloading of
Volatile Organic Compounds, would apply to four of the five best
performing facilities if they transfer materials having vapor pressures
and at rates that meet or exceed the control applicability cutoffs of
the proposed NESHAP.
Subchapter C requires control of loading greater than or equal to
20,000 gallons per day of VOC with a true vapor pressure greater than
or equal to
[[Page 76430]]
0.5 psia. Loading racks meeting the control requirement applicability
threshold are to be controlled with a vapor recovery system that
achieves a 90 percent recovery or a vapor balancing system that
maintains a pressure equal to or greater than 1.5 psia. It is assumed
that the efficiency achieved for VOC emission control is the same as
the efficiency achieved for HAP control in the case of ethylene
manufacturing transfer racks. Subchapter C also includes requirements
for transport vessels, lines, and connection systems. Because four of
the five facilities are subject to the requirements of subchapter C and
none of them are subject to or are controlling to levels more stringent
than subchapter C, we determined that the transfer rack component of
the MACT floor for new and existing sources is the set of requirements
included in subchapter C.
One above-the-floor option for existing sources is requiring a
greater reduction in emissions. The HON and 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB
(Benzene Transfer Operations NESHAP), require 98 weight-percent control
of HAP emissions from transfer racks. We determined it is appropriate
to require more stringent control, specifically 98 weight-percent
control of HAP emissions or to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to
3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the control device and
supplemental combustion air is used to combust the emissions). Because
an EMPU is either equipped with a flare or has access to a common
flare, if a facility decides to equip transfer racks with a closed vent
system and a control or recovery device, the most cost-effective option
would be to route emissions to an existing flare. This is supported by
the fact that all transfer racks at ethylene manufacturing facilities
that we estimate are controlled use a flare as a control device.
Routing emissions to the flare would not cost more than routing
emissions to another control device and would cost less than
constructing a new control or recovery device. It is generally accepted
that flares achieve a 98 weight-percent reduction in HAP emissions.
Since emissions can be reduced by 98 weight-percent at the same cost as
reducing them by 90 weight-percent, we have determined that the
appropriate MACT level of control for existing sources is 98 weight-
percent reduction in HAP emissions (if a closed vent system and control
device are used) or to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3
percent oxygen if a combustion device is the control device and
supplemental combustion air is used to combust the emissions). The same
logic applies to new sources. The least expensive control option for a
new source would be to route transfer emissions to an existing flare or
new flare that must be constructed anyway. Therefore, the MACT level of
control for new sources is the same as the level of control for
existing sources.
d. Waste. According to the survey responses, all of the best
performing facilities are controlling to comply with the requirements
of the BWON. Therefore, the MACT floor for both new and existing
sources is based on the control level achieved at the best performing
facilities. Although the purpose of the BWON is to control benzene
emissions, the control technologies in use to comply with the BWON also
result in the control of other HAP. Based on data received in the
survey responses, waste streams from each EMPU that contain benzene
also contain other HAP, primarily 1,3-butadiene, cumene, ethyl benzene,
hexane, naphthalene, styrene, toluene, and xylene. These HAP are
similar to benzene in solubility and volatility. Therefore, we expect
that these HAP are controlled to a similar level as benzene by
management and treatment of the waste streams.
The treatment requirements of the BWON require removal of benzene
from the waste stream to 10 ppmw or by 99 weight-percent. For each
closed vent system and control device used to comply with the
requirements of the BWON, a benzene reduction of 98 weight-percent must
be achieved. Because facilities controlling waste under the BWON are
also achieving equal control of other HAP with physical properties
similar to benzene, the control requirements of the MACT floor are the
control requirements of the BWON for benzene as applied to total HAP.
Thus, the waste component of the MACT floor requires removal of total
HAP from the waste stream to 10 ppmw or by 99 weight-percent, and for
each closed vent system and control device used to comply with the
requirements of the proposed NESHAP, a total HAP reduction of 98
weight-percent must be achieved.
Today's proposed standards include control applicability cutoffs
which are also based on the BWON. We considered whether the best
performing facilities control all waste streams, and whether we could
determine a HAP concentration cutoff and flow rate cutoff as part of
the MACT floor. Generally, the BWON does not require management or
treatment of waste streams containing less than 10 ppmw benzene or
having a flow rate less than 0.02 liters per minute. We considered
using the same cutoffs for the proposed NESHAP. However, facilities
controlling waste for benzene are also achieving concurrent control of
other HAP with physical properties similar to benzene. In addition,
expressing the cutoff concentration in today's proposal as a benzene
concentration could result in a cutoff that might exclude from control
some waste streams that are similar in terms of HAP concentration as
those being controlled at the floor. Since 10 ppmw benzene is
approximately the same as 10 ppmw HAP for most of the waste streams, we
are expressing the cutoff for the MACT floor as not requiring control
of streams containing less than 10 ppmw total HAP or with a flow rate
less than 0.02 liters per minute.
Finally, the BWON applies to facilities with a TAB quantity of 10
Mg/yr or greater. If a facility's waste streams have less than 10 Mg/yr
benzene, the facility does not have to manage or treat waste to comply
with the BWON. This cannot apply to MACT because MACT is a technology-
based standard, and the MACT floor is based on the control technology
performance for control of HAP at the best performing facilities. All
of the best performing facilities are controlling HAP from waste
streams. Therefore, the MACT floor level of control applies at each
EMPU, regardless of the TAB. We have identified no rationale to support
the subcategorization of waste operations based on the TAB.
One above-the-floor option is to have no control applicability
cutoffs. We have determined that the emissions reductions that would be
achieved by the management and treatment of all waste streams would
result in considerably higher costs that cannot be justified.
Additional above-the-floor control options include more stringent
management and treatment requirements. However, the management
requirements of the BWON are already comprehensive and include all
equipment used to transport waste. Similarly, the treatment
requirements are quite stringent: removal of total HAP from the waste
stream to 10 ppmw or by 99 weight-percent. We have not identified more
stringent requirements for waste treatment. Therefore, we have
determined that MACT for both new and existing sources is the MACT
floor level of control.
e. Heat Exchange Systems. No control devices for cooling water were
reported by the best performing sources. However, using the survey
data, a relationship was found between HAP
[[Page 76431]]
emissions and how often a facility monitors cooling water for the
presence of compounds that would indicate a leak. This relationship
likely exists because once a leak is detected, actions are taken to
repair the leak or take the leaking equipment out of service, thereby
minimizing emissions from cooling water. Three of the five best
performing facilities monitor monthly, one monitors weekly, and one
reported using an on-line head space analyzer (a head space analyzer
does not provide adequate indication of leaks to cooling water and was
not considered in determining the heat exchange system component of the
MACT floor).
We have determined that the heat exchange system component of the
MACT floor for existing sources is a cooling water LDAR program that
includes monthly monitoring because this is the frequency of monitoring
at the median facility. The heat exchange system component of the MACT
floor for new sources includes weekly monitoring because this is the
most frequent monitoring performed.
One above-the-floor option is to require weekly monitoring at
existing sources. Other above-the-floor options, which are not
currently in place at any of the surveyed ethylene manufacturing
facilities, are monitoring of the cooling water on a daily basis or
monitoring continuously.
We have determined that the MACT levels of control are the floor
levels of control for new and existing sources: a LDAR program with
monthly monitoring for existing sources and weekly monitoring for new
sources. Based on the information we have, the average monitoring
frequency in practice by the best performing 12 percent of the affected
sources is monthly. We found only one facility monitoring more
frequently (weekly). Based on these findings, cost considerations and
anticipated emissions reductions, we believe that, for existing
sources, monthly monitoring is an adequate frequency to satisfy MACT.
If a leak is detected, repair is required to be completed within 15
calender days unless delay is required for reasons specified in the
proposed standards. The time allowed for repair is consistent with the
time allowed for repair for other leaking equipment at an EMPU, and we
have determined that it is an appropriate amount of time to allow for
repair to heat exchange equipment as well.
In addition to specifying the frequency of cooling water monitoring
required, the proposed standards specify procedures for collecting and
analyzing the samples. The test methods specified are based on the
requirements of the HON which covers SOCMI sources having heat exchange
system processes similar to ethylene production facilities. The
requirements for where to obtain a cooling water sample are unique to
an EMPU. Ethylene production requires a relatively high cooling water
usage, approximately eight times that for a SOCMI unit. We are
concerned that, due to the high total flow rate of cooling water, a
leak in an EMPU would result in a concentration so low it would go
undetected. To address this concern, we are requiring that cooling
water be sampled at the inlet and outlet of each heat exchanger. This
will ensure that the cooling water will be tested at the lowest
possible flow rate, where leaks will be the least diluted. To reduce
the burden that this requirement will cause, only heat exchangers used
to cool fluids containing 5 percent HAP or greater are required to be
tested. This is the same cutoff used to determine which components must
be monitored as part of the LDAR program for equipment leaks.
f. Equipment Leaks. The equipment leak emission types include
emissions from specific components (pumps, compressors, pressure relief
devices, gas valves, light liquid valves, heavy liquid valves, and
connectors) of the process. A method for estimating controlled and
uncontrolled equipment leak emissions from facilities in the SOCMI was
used to quantify the effectiveness of control strategies in use at the
five best performing facilities. This method is described in the 1995
Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (EPA document 453/R-95-
017).
The median control effectiveness is achieved by control strategies
at three of the five best performing facilities. These three control
strategies are considered to represent the equipment leak component of
the MACT floor for existing sources. The median is expressed as the
control effectiveness achieved by control strategies at three
facilities because the control effectiveness achieved by these
facilities is equivalent. The control strategies used by the three
median facilities include an LDAR program that requires monitoring of
valves, connectors, and in some cases compressors, pumps, and pressure
relief devices. Emissions from compressors, pumps, and pressure relief
devices that are not monitored are routed to control devices. The level
of emissions used by the facilities to indicate a leak is 500 ppmv.
Review of control strategies in use, permit requirements, and
regulations for similar sources did not reveal any equipment leak
control strategies more stringent than the MACT floor for existing
sources. This is not unexpected considering the stringency of the MACT
floor at existing sources. The equipment leak portion of the MACT floor
requires all components to be monitored or controlled, so no additional
components could be added to the requirements. The leak definition of
the floor, 500 ppmv, is the lowest used in the ethylene manufacturing
industry, with one exception. One facility is using a 300 ppmv leak
definition. We do not have adequate data to determine how emissions
would be impacted by using a leak definition of 300 ppmv rather than
500 ppmv. The Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates document
(EPA-453/R-95-017) does not include emission factors for leak
definitions less than 500 ppmv. Due to the level of accuracy of the
sampling and testing methods and the relatively small difference in
leak definitions, the difference in emissions is likely to be minimal.
We have not identified any options more stringent than the equipment
leak floor component for existing sources. Therefore, the MACT level of
control for equipment leaks at new and existing sources is based on the
floor level of control for existing sources.
g. Furnaces. Typically, the ethylene production process involves
converting large hydrocarbon molecules into smaller molecules through a
process referred to as ``thermal cracking.'' This takes place in the
ethylene cracking furnace. Based on information provided in survey
responses, the furnaces are fired with natural gas, refinery gas, off-
gas from the production process, or a combination of the three.
Ethylene cracking furnaces are expected to have relatively low HAP
emissions. The fuels burned in cracking furnaces contain relatively
little HAP, and most organic HAP are destroyed in the combustion
process. In fact, process heaters are used as control devices for
process vents containing HAP. We decided to consider standards for gas-
fired process heaters because HAP emissions can result from incomplete
combustion, and natural and refinery gas combustion has been shown to
result in emissions of formaldehyde. Ethylene cracking furnaces could
have been included in separate MACT standards that are currently being
considered for process heaters. However, we decided to include cracking
furnaces in the proposed NESHAP for ethylene manufacturing in order to
establish comprehensive MACT standards that
[[Page 76432]]
cover all of the HAP emission types within an ethylene manufacturing
process unit.
None of the surveyed facilities reported controlling HAP emissions
from furnaces using an add-on control device. In addition to add-on
controls, we considered control techniques that may minimize HAP
emissions. As combustion destroys most organic HAP, it is assumed that
those furnaces operated with optimal combustion conditions would have
the lowest HAP emissions. One difficulty in pursuing a level of good
combustion as a regulatory requirement is in determining a parameter
that accurately indicates good combustion. Excess oxygen has been
suggested as a parameter that indicates whether good combustion is
being achieved. Based on survey responses and discussions with industry
representatives, the majority of ethylene furnaces are equipped with
monitors for excess oxygen. At least one facility has automatic
controls for excess oxygen. Generally, excess oxygen is monitored to
ensure that adequate oxygen is available for combustion, and that
efficient combustion is being achieved. Oxygen levels may also be
monitored to ensure that they do not exceed a level that would result
in excessive NOX emissions. Because excess oxygen is
typically controlled by closing and opening dampers by hand, it is not
precisely controlled, but rather allowed to fluctuate within an
acceptable range. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the
facilities have determined the relationship between excess oxygen and
HAP emissions. Theoretically, three different furnaces, one with
automatic excess oxygen controls, one with an excess oxygen monitor
without automatic controls, and one without excess oxygen monitors
could have the same level of HAP emissions because none of them are
being operated to specifically control HAP emissions. Data are not
available to determine whether HAP emissions reductions are actually
being achieved by facilities monitoring and/or controlling excess
oxygen. Therefore, we cannot require the use of excess oxygen monitors
for controlling HAP emissions from ethylene cracking furnaces.
Further, we have not identified any add-on controls or control
techniques currently in use to control HAP emissions from ethylene
cracking furnaces. The MACT floor for ethylene cracking furnaces is no
control, and there are no known above-the-floor options. Thus, although
ethylene cracking furnaces were considered in developing the proposed
NESHAP, no regulatory requirements for them are included.
h. Decoking. Coke is periodically removed from the coils within an
ethylene cracking furnace through a process referred to as
``decoking.'' During the decoking process, the furnace is isolated from
the rest of the ethylene manufacturing process, and steam is used to
strip the coke from the coils. The steam, products of combustion, and
coke that exit the furnace coils are typically cooled, either with
quench water or in a heat exchanger. Water and coke particles are
removed with a knock-out pot or other mechanical control device. The
resulting water stream is routed back into the process or is discarded.
The non-condensed stream is emitted to the atmosphere or in some cases,
routed into the furnace firebox.
None of the facilities that received the section 114 survey
reported having any test data for emissions from coke combustion. We
were not able to locate any test data or published emission factors for
coke combustion. There are reasons to believe HAP emissions from
decoking are relatively low. It is not likely that the coke contains
much volatile material, and volatile material should be destroyed
during the combustion phase of the decoking process. However, the
conditions within the coils are not expected to be conducive to good
combustion, which may result in volatile material not being destroyed.
Additionally, HAP emissions may be created in the decoking process.
Another reason that it is important to consider emissions from decoking
is the frequency with which it occurs. A typical furnace may be decoked
between 8 and 12 times per year. A typical ethylene unit may comprise
eight furnaces. Assuming a decoke lasts 36 hours, a typical ethylene
unit may have a decoke of one of its furnaces occurring 40 percent of
the time.
Due to the potential for HAP emissions and the frequency of
decoking, we believe that it is necessary to address decoking in the
proposed NESHAP. We have determined that decoking is a shutdown
activity and will, therefore, be addressed through a facility's
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The definition for a shutdown
in the proposed NESHAP includes ``the cessation of operation of a
regulated source and equipment required or used to comply with this
subpart * * * for purposes of * * * periodic maintenance * * *.''
During decoking, the cracking process ceases in order to allow the
furnace to be decoked, which is essentially a maintenance activity.
Defining decoking as a shutdown activity requires decoking operations
to be included in a facility's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
This will require owners and operators of ethylene units to include in
their plan procedures for decoking that will minimize emissions. This
requirement is not expected to be burdensome to owners and operators as
it is expected that most facilities already have written decoking
procedures.
Although it has been determined that the most appropriate way to
address decoking is to consider it a shutdown activity, we reviewed
information available to determine if it would be possible to establish
a MACT emission limit for decoking. In the survey responses, two
facilities reported routing decoking emissions from all furnaces to the
furnace firebox. This technique may control HAP emissions from
decoking, if there are any. However, its effectiveness is unknown. We
are not aware of any test data for emissions before or after routing
through the furnace firebox. Based on the information available, if a
MACT analysis were performed for decoking, it is likely that the floor
level of control would be no control. Routing emissions to the firebox
could be considered as an above-the-floor option. However, it would be
difficult to evaluate this option because its effectiveness is unknown.
The results of the review of information available for decoking
confirmed our decision to regard decoking as a shutdown activity.
In addition to air emissions resulting from decoking operations, it
is also possible that HAP may be present in the condensate stream that
results when the steam, products of combustion, and coke are cooled and
condensed. If the condensate stream is not recycled into the process
and is discarded, it will be covered under the waste requirements that
are also proposed today. Therefore, all possible sources of emissions
from decoking operations are covered by the proposed NESHAP.
4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements?
We selected the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts YY, SS, TT, UU, and WW, to
demonstrate and document compliance with the proposed NESHAP for
ethylene production. The procedures and methods set out in these
subparts are, where appropriate, based on procedures and methods that
we previously developed for use in implementing standards for emission
point sources
[[Page 76433]]
similar to those being proposed for the Ethylene Production source
category.
General compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that would apply across source categories and affected
emission points are contained within 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY
(Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1113). We specify the applicability
assessment procedures necessary to determine whether an emission point
is required to apply control. These requirements are dependent on the
emission point for which control applicability needs to be assessed and
the form of the applicability cutoff selected for an individual source
category (e.g., HAP concentration cutoff level, above which, control is
required).
We selected emission point and/or control device-specific
monitoring (including continuous monitoring), recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements included under common control requirements in
subparts promulgated for storage vessels (40 CFR part 63, subpart WW);
equipment leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or TT); and closed vent
systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel gas
system or a process (40 CFR part 63, subpart SS). These subparts
contain a common set of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. We established these subparts to ensure consistency of
the air emission requirements applied to similar emission points with
pollutant streams containing gaseous HAP.
We believe that the compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of subparts YY, SS, TT, and UU are appropriate
for demonstrating and documenting compliance with the requirements
proposed for the Ethylene Production source category. This is because
these requirements were established for standards with similar form,
and similar emission points with pollutant streams of gaseous HAP for
which we are requiring MACT compliance demonstration and documentation
under this proposal.
D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
We estimate that the proposed NESHAP will decrease HAP emissions by
992 Mg/yr (1,090 TPY) (a 60 percent reduction) and decrease VOC
emissions by 9,271 Mg/yr (10,188 TPY) (a 64 percent reduction).
2. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The cost of implementing the control techniques is expected to vary
widely between ethylene manufacturing facilities. The cost of control
techniques for some facilities will be minimal because they already
have in place the work practices, equipment, and control devices
required to comply with the proposed NESHAP. The highest costs will be
incurred by facilities that are not currently complying with the BWON
and will have to add waste management and treatment equipment to comply
with the proposed NESHAP. We estimate the average cost of controls for
these facilities to be $1.03 million. For facilities that already have
waste management and treatment equipment, we estimate the average cost
to be $7,600.
3. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The economic impact analysis for the proposed NESHAP for ethylene
production shows that the annual compliance costs are less than 0.01
percent of the sales for the 22 affected firms. In fact, seven firms
are expected to experience small savings in costs as a result of
implementing the proposed NESHAP. Therefore, no adverse impact is
expected to occur for these firms in the ethylene manufacturing
industry. Estimation of the cost and economic impacts of the proposed
NESHAP is detailed in memoranda included in the docket for the proposed
NESHAP (Docket No. A-98-22).
4. What Are the Nonair Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?
We believe that there would not be significant adverse nonair
health, environmental, or energy impacts associated with the proposed
NESHAP for the Ethylene Production source category. This is based on
the types of control techniques expected to be used to comply with the
proposed NESHAP. The majority of control techniques are either work
practices, such as an LDAR program for equipment leaks and cooling
water; or equipment standards, such as floating roofs for storage
vessels which do not cause increases in water pollution; or solid
waste. Because most of the control techniques expected to be used to
comply with the proposed NESHAP are either work practices or equipment
standards, minimal increases in energy use are expected.
E. Solicitation of Comments
Representatives of the ethylene industry have reviewed our MACT
floor approach and suggested that the MACT floor should not include
connector monitoring. Industry does not refute that facilities are
complying with State requirements for connector monitoring, or that the
best performing facilities are those with the most stringent LDAR
programs. However, industry believes the emissions from connectors are
inflated due to the fact that we rely upon the SOCMI emission factors,
which they believe are not appropriate for connectors in the ethylene
industry. Industry representatives have submitted data to support their
position that emissions from connectors are very low and, therefore,
routine connector monitoring at ethylene facilities does not result in
reduced emissions. Industry has concluded that the use of different
ethylene industry-derived emission factors for connectors would mean
that the determination of the best performing 12 percent of facilities
would not be as heavily influenced by connector emissions as it is in
our analysis. They suggest that a different set of five facilities
(equivalent to the best performing 12 percent of facilities) would be
among the best performers than the five facilities upon which the MACT
floor for this proposal was determined.
The data provided by industry, along with correspondence from
industry representatives and summaries of stakeholder meetings have
been placed in the docket (Docket No. A-98-22). We are soliciting
comment on these data and industry's conclusions. We did not receive
industry's data in time for evaluation prior to this proposal.
We are also soliciting comments and data to support the
determination of the process vent component of the MACT for existing
sources. The MACT floor level of control for existing sources requires
that vents with flow rates greater than or equal to 0.011 scmm and HAP
concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppmv must be controlled to
reduce HAP emissions by 98 weight-percent or to 20 ppmv. An above-the-
floor option considered is to require vents with flow rates greater
than or equal to 0.008 scmm and HAP concentration of 30 ppmv or greater
to be controlled. This option is based on 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN--
Distillation Operations NSPS, which applies to one of the best
performing facilities and is the same as the process vent component of
the MACT for new sources. We do not have data to assess the cost
effectiveness of lowering the control applicability cutoffs for
existing sources, but we believe the cost would be minimal because
there are relatively few process vents, and the cutoffs being
considered are so similar to the MACT floor. Additionally, having the
same cutoffs for new and existing sources would simplify compliance
with, and enforcement of, the proposed NESHAP. We are soliciting
comments and data to:
[[Page 76434]]
(1) Support or refute the assumption that there are few vents with flow
rates between 0.008 and 0.011 scmm and HAP concentrations between 30
and 50 ppmv, (2) aid in estimating the cost of controlling these vents
if they do exist, and (3) support or refute that there is a benefit
associated with simplifying the proposed NESHAP by having the same
requirements for vents at new and existing sources.
We are also soliciting comments on the monitoring requirements for
heat exchangers. The proposed standards require that cooling water
samples must be collected at the inlet and outlet of each heat
exchanger that cools process fluids with 5 percent HAP or greater. An
alternative option that was considered would allow samples to be
collected at the entrance and exit of each heat exchange system, or at
locations where the cooling water enters and exits each heat exchanger,
or any combination of heat exchangers as long as the cooling water flow
rate at the sampling point does not exceed a specified value. We do not
have data to determine the maximum flow rate to ensure that leaks will
be detected with the test methods used. We are soliciting comments and
flow rate data to support or refute the proposed requirements for
sampling cooling water at EMPU heat exchangers. We are also soliciting
comment to support or refute the assumption that the applicability
criteria of 5 percent HAP is appropriate for determining which heat
exchangers must be monitored for leaks.
V. Spandex Production
A. Introduction
1. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
The HAP emission points covered by the proposed NESHAP include
process vents, storage vessels, and fiber spinning lines. The HAP
emitted from spandex production facilities include toluene and TDI. The
proposed NESHAP would regulate emissions of these compounds, as well as
other incidental organic HAP that are emitted during the manufacture of
spandex fiber. The 1997 baseline HAP emissions estimate for the
facilities using the reaction spinning process is 303 Mg/yr (334 TPY).
The majority of these emissions are from process vents and fiber
spinning lines.
2. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the HAP Emitted?
The principle HAP associated with spandex production facilities is
toluene; another HAP emitted in very small quantities is TDI.
Toluene. Effects on the central nervous system have been reported
from acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposure to toluene and
include dysfunction, fatigue, sleepiness, headaches, and nausea.
Reported effects from short-term high level exposures also include
cardiovascular symptoms in humans. Additional long-term exposure
effects include irritation of the eye, throat and respiratory tract.
Studies of workers occupationally exposed and animals exposed in the
laboratory have reported adverse affects on the developing fetus. Due
to a lack of information for humans and inadequate animal evidence, EPA
does not consider toluene classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
TDI. Acute exposure to high levels of TDI can result in severe
irritation of the skin and eyes and affects the respiratory,
gastrointestinal, and central nervous systems. Chronic exposure of
workers on the job has resulted in significant decreases in lung
function and an asthma-like reaction characterized by wheezing,
dyspnea, and bronchial constriction. Animal studies have reported
significantly increased incidences of tumors of the pancreas, liver,
and mammary glands from exposure to TDI via gavage (experimentally
placing the chemical in the stomach). The EPA has not evaluated TDI for
carcinogenicity, however, the International Agency for Research on
Cancer has classified TDI as a possible human carcinogen.
B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Spandex Production
1. What Is the Source Category To Be Regulated?
The Spandex Production source category includes any facility that
manufactures spandex fiber by the reaction spinning process. Spandex
fiber is a long-chain, synthetic polymer comprised of at least 85
percent by mass of a segmented polyurethane. The spandex production
process involves the reaction of a diisocyanate with a polyol
(polyester or polyether glycol) to generate diisocyanate-terminated
prepolymer. The prepolymer is extruded (or spun) while simultaneously
reacting with a chain-extender in a spin bath to generate spandex
fiber.
There are two spandex production facilities in the United States
that use the reaction spinning process, and both are presently major
sources. The proposed NESHAP would apply to any major sources that
produce spandex fiber by reaction spinning. Final determination of
major source status occurs as part of the compliance determination
process undertaken by each individual source. Area sources would not be
subject to the proposed NESHAP.
In reaction spinning: (1) The spandex prepolymer is extruded into
spinning baths containing HAP solvent, (2) the baths are covered with
hoods and are open to the room air, (3) the hoods and room air are
vented to an emission control device, (4) the spandex polymer is
generated simultaneously with extrusion, (5) drying is a separate
process step, and (6) there are large quantities of HAP emissions.
2. What Is the Affected Source?
The affected source consists of all process vents, storage vessels,
and fiber spinning lines that are associated with reaction spinning
spandex production processes located at a major source of HAP
emissions, as defined in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A.
3. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards?
The following discussion briefly summarizes the proposed control
requirements for the affected emission points.
a. Process Vents. For process vents, HAP emissions are required to
be controlled by routing emissions through a closed vent system to one
of the following: (1) A flare, (2) an enclosed combustion device that
reduces HAP emissions by 95 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20
ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the
control device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust the
emissions), or (3) a recovery device that reduces HAP emissions by 95
weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv. Requirements are the
same for both new and existing sources.
b. Storage Vessels. Storage vessels with capacity greater than 47.3
cubic meters (12,500 gallons) that store materials with a maximum true
vapor pressure of organic HAP greater than or equal to 3.4 kilopascals
(0.5 psia) are required to control organic HAP emissions by using an
external floating roof equipped with specified primary and secondary
seals, by using a fixed roof with an internal floating roof equipped
with specified seals, or by venting emissions through a closed vent
system to a control device achieving 95 weight-percent control.
Requirements are the same for both new and existing sources.
c. Fiber Spinning Lines. For fiber spinning lines, HAP emissions
are required to be captured and vented through a closed vent system to
a
[[Page 76435]]
control device achieving 95 weight-percent control or 20 ppmv
(corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the control
device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust the
emissions). Requirements are the same for both new and existing
sources.
4. What Are the Testing and Initial and Continuous Compliance
Requirements?
We are proposing testing and initial and continuous compliance
requirements that are, where appropriate, based on procedures and
methods that we have previously developed and used for emission points
similar to those for which we are proposing NESHAP with this action.
For continuous compliance, you must install continuous parameter
monitoring systems (CPMS) and conduct a performance evaluation of the
CPMS. You must identify a relevant parameter that will indicate the
control device is operating properly and then continuously monitor the
selected parameter.
5. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
If you are subject to requirements under the Generic MACT standards
subpart, you would be required to comply with general notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
You must submit one-time reports of the (1) start of construction
for new facilities, (2) anticipated and actual start-up dates for new
facilities, and (3) physical or operational changes to existing
facilities. You are also required to maintain all records for a period
of at least 5 years.
If you own or operate an affected source that has an initial
startup date before the promulgation date of standards for that
affected source under the Generic MACT standards subpart, you must
submit a one-time initial notification. You must submit this
notification within 1 year after the promulgation date of standards for
an affected source under the Generic MACT standards subpart (or within
1 year after the affected source becomes subject to the Generic MACT
standards subpart).
For sources constructed or reconstructed after the effective date
of the relevant standards, the General Provisions require that the
source submit an application for approval of construction or
reconstruction. The application is required to contain information on
the air pollution control that will be used for each potential HAP
emission point.
The information in the Initial Notification and the application for
construction or reconstruction will enable enforcement personnel to
identify the number of sources subject to, or are already in compliance
with, the standards.
You must also submit a Notification of Compliance Status report.
You must have this notification signed by a responsible company
official who certifies its accuracy and that the affected source has
complied with the relevant standards. You must submit the results of
any required performance tests (as applicable) as part of the
Notification of Compliance Status report. You must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status report within 60 days after the
compliance date specified for an affected source subject to the Generic
MACT standards subpart.
For CPMS, you must submit a report of the performance evaluation
results to the delegated authority. You must also submit reports of
parameter monitoring deviations and CPMS performance deviations to the
delegated authority semiannually.
C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Spandex
Production
1. How Did EPA Select the Source Category?
We listed Spandex Production as a category of major sources of HAP
on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Today's proposed standards apply to
reaction spinning processes only.
2. How Did EPA Determine the Affected Source?
The affected source is the combination of all regulated operations
at a spandex production facility. The following regulated operations
are typically performed at spandex production facilities and are part
of the affected source: process vents, storage vessels, and fiber
spinning lines. These are the typical operations found at spandex
production facilities, and we determined MACT for these operations.
3. How Did EPA Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards
for Existing and New Sources?
There are two spandex production facilities in the United States
that produce spandex fiber by reaction spinning; these facilities are
owned by one company. Both are major sources as defined under section
112(a) of the CAA.
For a source category with fewer than 30 major sources, section
112(d)(3) of the CAA directs that the MACT floor be based on the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five
sources. The MACT floor for new sources in a source category is
required to reflect the level of control being achieved by the best
controlled similar source. In setting the MACT for spandex production
using reaction spinning, we looked at the level of control presently in
place at the two reaction spinning major source facilities.
At reaction spinning process spandex production facilities, there
are a number of process vent streams containing HAP. The process vent
types include vents associated with prepolymer reactors, dryers, and
the solvent recovery system. The floor for process vents at reaction
spinning processes requires 95 percent control by venting through a
closed vent system to a control device. The two reaction spinning
process facilities already have emission controls in place for process
vents that are equivalent to those required by the Generic MACT NESHAP.
We are not aware of any additional controls that would get further
emissions reductions that would be more effective or reasonable for
beyond-the-floor control for process vents. Therefore, MACT for process
vents is the floor level of control.
The storage vessel control requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WW, also called ``Level 2'' storage vessel controls, require the
vessels to be equipped with a floating roof or covered and vented
through a closed vent system to a control device. The two reaction
spinning process facilities already have Level 2 emission controls on
their storage vessels, and this level of control is considered to be
the floor. We are not aware of any additional controls that would get
further emissions reductions and be more effective or reasonable for
beyond-the-floor control for storage vessels. Therefore, MACT for
storage vessels at reaction spinning process spandex production
facilities is the MACT floor.
During the fiber spinning step, HAP are volatilized from the spin
bath solvent tanks, washing tanks, and the wet belt dryers. The solvent
tanks, wash tanks, and wet belt dryers are covered with hoods and
vented to an emission control device. There are also emissions into the
room air, and room air is vented to an emission control device. At the
two facilities in this source category, emissions from the fiber
spinning lines are controlled by capture and subsequent routing to an
emission control device. The floor for fiber spinning lines is capture
of emissions around the spinning, washing and wet belt dryer areas of
the spinning line and
[[Page 76436]]
venting to a control device that reduces HAP emissions by 95 weight-
percent. We are not aware of any additional controls that would get
further emissions reductions and be more effective or reasonable for
beyond-the-floor control for fiber spinning lines. Therefore, MACT for
fiber spinning lines is the floor level of control.
4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements?
We selected the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS and WW, to demonstrate and
document compliance with the spandex production standards. The
procedures and methods set out in these subparts are, where
appropriate, based on procedures and methods that we previously
developed for use in implementing standards for emission point sources
similar to those being proposed for the Spandex Production source
category.
General compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that would apply across source categories and affected
emission points are contained within 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY (i.e.,
Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1113). We specify the applicability assessment
procedures necessary to determine whether an emission point is required
to apply control. These procedures are dependent on the emission point
for which control applicability needs to be assessed and the form of
the applicability cutoff selected for an individual source category
(e.g., a HAP concentration cutoff level, above which control is
required).
We selected monitoring (including continuous monitoring),
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements included under common control
requirements in subparts promulgated for storage vessels (40 CFR part
63, subpart WW), and closed vent systems, control devices, recovery
devices and routing to a fuel gas system or a process (40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS). These subparts contain a common set of monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. We established these subparts
to ensure consistency of the air emission requirements applied to
similar emission points with pollutant streams containing gaseous
organic HAP. The rationale for the establishment of these subparts and
requirements contained within each subpart is presented in the proposal
preamble for the Generic MACT standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY
(63 FR 55186-55191).
We believe that the compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts WW and SS, are
appropriate for demonstrating and documenting compliance with the
requirements proposed for the Spandex Production source category. This
is because these requirements were established for standards with
similar formats and similar emission points with pollutant streams of
gaseous organic HAP for which we are requiring MACT compliance
demonstration and documentation under this proposal.
D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
There are no additional emissions reductions achieved by the
proposed NESHAP. The level of control required by the proposed NESHAP
is already in place at the two affected reaction spinning facilities.
2. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The total estimated annual compliance cost of the proposed NESHAP
for the Spandex Production source category is $78,040. This estimate
includes annualized capital costs for monitoring equipment purchased.
Annual costs also include monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
costs. Costs were not included for control equipment since this is
already in place at the two reaction spinning process facilities.
The capital costs are estimated to be $32,820 (in 1998 dollars).
The capital costs are for purchase of thermocouples and liquid flow
transducers for CPMS equipment, and closed vent systems leak detection
monitors. These costs are more than likely an overestimate since the
two affected facilities already have monitors on their carbon
adsorbers.
3. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The goal of the economic impact analysis is to estimate the market
response of the spandex production facilities to the proposed NESHAP
and to determine the economic effects that may result from the proposed
NESHAP. The Spandex Production source category contains five
facilities, but only the two facilities that use the reaction spinning
process are affected by the proposed NESHAP. These potentially affected
facilities are owned by one company.
Spandex fiber production leads to potential HAP emissions from
fiber spinning lines, storage tanks, and process vents; however, the
emission sources are well controlled by the affected spandex
manufacturing facilities. The mandated levels of control are met at
these sources; therefore, no costs are expected to be incurred by the
spandex facilities in order to comply with the proposed NESHAP.
Instead, the compliance costs for the proposed NESHAP relate primarily
to monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping activities. The estimated
total annualized costs for the proposed NESHAP are $78,040, which
represents less than 0.01 percent of the revenues of the companies that
own the spandex manufacturing facilities. The proposed NESHAP are,
therefore, expected to have a negligible impact on the Spandex
Production source category.
The economic impacts at the facility and company levels are
measured by comparing the annualized compliance costs for each entity
to its revenues. A cost-to-sales ratio is first calculated and then is
multiplied by 100 to convert the ratio into percentages. For the
proposed NESHAP, a cost-to-sales ratio exceeding 1 percent is
determined to be an initial indicator of the potential for a
significant facility impact. Revenues at the facility level are not
available, therefore estimated facility revenues received from the sale
of spandex fiber are used. Both affected facilities are expected to
incur positive compliance costs. The ratio of costs to estimated
revenues range from a low of 0.22 percent to a high of 0.35 percent.
Thus, on average, the economic impact of the proposed NESHAP is minimal
for the facilities producing spandex fibers.
The share of compliance costs to company sales are calculated to
determine company level impacts. One company owns the two affected
facilities, so only one firm faces positive compliance costs from the
proposed NESHAP. The ratio of costs to company revenues is 0.10
percent. At the company level, the proposed NESHAP are not anticipated
to have a significant economic impact on companies that own and operate
the spandex fiber facilities. For more information, consult the
economic impact analysis report entitled Economic Impact Analysis:
Spandex Production, which is in the docket for the spandex source
category.
4. What Are the Nonair Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?
We believe that there would not be significant adverse
environmental or energy impacts associated with the proposed NESHAP for
the Spandex Production source category. The industry's baseline level
of control is high, and the proposed NESHAP are currently being
achieved for the emission point types. Environmental
[[Page 76437]]
impacts from the application of the control or recovery devices
proposed for the Spandex Production source category are also expected
to be minimal for secondary air pollutants. In general, we determine
impacts relative to the baseline that is set at the level of control in
absence of the proposed NESHAP.
There is no incremental increase in emissions related to water
pollution or solid waste as a result of today's proposed NESHAP.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether a proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that the proposed NESHAP are not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and are, therefore, not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the proposed NESHAP have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An ICR document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1983.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail
at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at
``[email protected],'' or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also
be downloaded from the internet at ``http://www.epa.gov/icr.''
Information is required to ensure compliance with the proposed
NESHAP. If the relevant information were collected less frequently, EPA
would not be reasonably assured that a source is in compliance with the
proposed NESHAP. In addition, EPA's authority to take administrative
action would be reduced significantly.
The proposed NESHAP would require owners or operators of affected
sources to retain records for a period of 5 years. The 5 year retention
period is consistent with the provisions of the General Provisions of
40 CFR part 63 and with the 5 year record retention requirement in the
operating permit program under title V of the CAA.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed NESHAP
are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414).
All information submitted to us for which a claim of confidentiality is
made will be safeguarded according to our policies in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B, ``Confidentiality of Business Information.''
The EPA expects the proposed NESHAP to affect a total of 75
facilities over the first 3 years. The EPA assumes that no new
facilities will become subject to the proposed NESHAP during each of
the first 3 years. The EPA expects 75 existing facilities to be
affected by the proposed NESHAP, and these existing facilities will
begin complying in the third year.
The estimated average annual burden for the first 3 years after
promulgation of the NESHAP for the industries and the implementing
agency is outlined below. You can find the details of this information
collection in the ``Standard Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR No.
1983.01,'' in Docket No. A-97-17.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Capital and
Affected entity Total hours Labor costs costs (10 maintenance Total costs
(10 \3\ $) \3\ $) costs (10 (10 \3\ $)
\3\ $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................................... 33,926 1,510 4,901 16 6,427
Implementing agency............................ 3,465 117 0 0 117
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. Control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after December 6, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it by January 5, 2001. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
[[Page 76438]]
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed rule. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed rule.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their
concerns and the Agency's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely
manner.
The proposed NESHAP will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. No
facilities subject to the proposed NESHAP are owned by State or local
governments. Therefore, State and local governments will not have any
direct compliance costs resulting from the proposed NESHAP.
Furthermore, EPA is directed to develop the proposed NESHAP by section
112 of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive
Order do not apply to the proposed NESHAP.
D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, we may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or we consult with those
governments. If we comply by consulting, we are required by Executive
Order 13084 to provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of our prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires us to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Today's proposed NESHAP do not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments are
believed to be affected by the proposed NESHAP. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
the proposed NESHAP.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
We have determined that the proposed NESHAP do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is
approximately $22.2 million per year. The proposed NESHAP contain no
mandates affecting State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, today's
proposed NESHAP are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.
We have determined that the proposed NESHAP contain no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because they contain no requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations upon them.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
[[Page 76439]]
small business whose parent company has fewer than 1000 employees (500
for the Carbon Black source category); (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. There
are no small entities affected by this proposed rule.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA
to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The proposed NESHAP involve technical standards. The EPA proposes
to use EPA Methods 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 2c, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 18, 25,
25a, 26, 26a, 316, and 320. Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA
conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in
addition to these EPA methods. One voluntary consensus standard was
identified as applicable and EPA proposes to use it in the proposed
NESHAP.
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) consensus
standard, ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases described below for
inclusion in the proposed NESHAP in addition to EPA Methods. Similar to
EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also a performance-
based method for measurement of gaseous organic compounds. However,
ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific use of highly
portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages over the
traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less stringent
criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method 18.
Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18 where:
(1) The target compounds are those listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99, and (2) the target concentration is between 150 parts per billion
by volume and 100 ppmv.
For target compounds not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, but
potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run,
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed,
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water
soluble. For target compounds not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99
and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 does
not apply.
The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM 6420-99 into 40
CFR 63.14 for application to subpart SS of part 63. The EPA will also
cite Method 18 as a GC option in addition to ASTM D6420-99. This will
allow the continued use of other GC configurations.
For EPA Methods 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 2c, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 25,
25a, 26, 26a, 316, and 320, no applicable voluntary consensus standards
were found at this time. The search and review results have been
documented and are placed in the Generic MACT docket (Docket No. A-97-
17).
The EPA requests comment on compliance demonstration requirements
proposed today and specifically invites the public to identify
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. Comments should
explain why the proposed NESHAP should adopt these voluntary consensus
standards in lieu of EPA's standards. Emission test methods and
performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be
accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method
validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method
(if a method other than Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, is
used).
H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance
and not on health or safety risks. Additionally, the proposed NESHAP
are not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous air
pollutants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: November 3, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR AFFECTED SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is proposed to be amended by adding a new subpart XX to
read as follows:
Subpart XX--National Emission Standards for Ethylene Manufacturing
Process Units: Heat Exchange Systems and Waste
Sec.
Introduction
63.1080 What does this subpart do?
63.1081 When must I comply with the requirements of this subpart?
Applicability for Heat Exchange Systems
63.1082 Does this subpart apply to my heat exchange system?
[[Page 76440]]
63.1083 What heat exchange systems are exempt from the
requirements of this subpart?
Heat Exchange System Requirements
63.1084 What are the general requirements for heat exchange
systems?
Monitoring Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
63.1085 How must I monitor for leaks to cooling water?
63.1086 Where must I monitor for leaks to cooling water?
Repair Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
63.1087 What actions must I take if a leak is detected?
63.1088 In what situations may I delay leak repair, and what
actions must I take for delay of repair?
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
63.1089 What records must I keep?
63.1090 What reports must I submit?
Background for Waste Requirements
63.1091 What do the waste requirements do?
63.1092 What are the major differences between the requirements of
40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, and the waste requirements for ethylene
production sources?
Applicability for Waste Requirements
63.1093 Does this subpart apply to my waste streams?
63.1094 What waste streams are exempt from the requirements of
this subpart?
Waste Requirements
63.1095 What specific requirements must I comply with?
63.1096 What requirements must I comply with if I transfer waste
offsite?
Definitions for Waste Requirements
63.1097 What definitions do I need to know?
Implementation and Enforcement
63.1098 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Tables to Subpart XX
Table 1 to Subpart XX--Hazardous Air Pollutants
Table 2 to Subpart XX--Specific Differences in Requirements of this
subpart and 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF
Table 3 to Subpart XX--Sections of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF, that
are not Included in the Requirements of this Subpart
Introduction
Sec. 63.1080 What does this subpart do?
This subpart establishes requirements for controlling emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from heat exchange systems and waste
streams at new and existing ethylene manufacturing process units.
Sec. 63.1081 When must I comply with the requirements of this subpart?
You must comply with the requirements of this subpart according to
the schedule specified in Sec. 63.1102(a).
Applicability for Heat Exchange Systems
Sec. 63.1082 Does this subpart apply to my heat exchange system?
The provisions of this subpart apply to your heat exchange system
if you own or operate an ethylene manufacturing process unit expressly
referenced to this subpart XX from subpart YY of this part.
Sec. 63.1083 What heat exchange systems are exempt from the
requirements of this subpart?
Your heat exchange system is exempt from the requirements in
Secs. 63.1084 and 63.1085 if it meets at least one of the criteria in
paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section.
(a) Your heat exchange system operates with the minimum pressure on
the cooling water side at least 35 kilopascals greater than the maximum
pressure on the process side.
(b) Your heat exchange system contains an intervening cooling
fluid, containing less than 5 percent by weight of HAP, between the
process and the cooling water. This intervening fluid must serve to
isolate the cooling water from the process fluid and must not be sent
through a cooling tower or discharged. For purposes of this section,
discharge does not include emptying for maintenance purposes.
(c) The once-through heat exchange system is subject to a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with an allowable
discharge limit of 1 part per million by weight (ppmw) or less above
influent concentration or 10 percent or less above influent
concentration, whichever is greater.
(d) Your once-through heat exchange system is subject to a NPDES
permit that meets the conditions in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) The permit requires monitoring of a parameter or condition to
detect a leak of process fluids to cooling water.
(2) The permit specifies or includes the normal range of the
parameter or condition.
(3) The permit requires monthly or more frequent monitoring for the
parameters selected as leak indicators.
(4) The permit requires you to report and correct leaks to the
cooling water when the parameter or condition exceeds the normal range.
(e) Your recirculating heat exchange system cools process fluids
that contain less than 5 percent by weight of HAP.
(f) The once-through heat exchange system cools process fluids that
contain less than 5 percent by weight of HAP.
Heat Exchange System Requirements
Sec. 63.1084 What are the general requirements for heat exchange
systems?
Unless you meet one of the requirements for exemptions in
Sec. 63.1083, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) through
(d) of this section.
(a) Monitor the cooling water for the presence of substances that
indicate a leak according to Secs. 63.1085 and 63.1086.
(b) If you detect a leak, repair it according to Sec. 63.1087
unless repair is delayed according to Sec. 63.1088.
(c) Keep the records specified in Sec. 63.1089.
(d) Submit the reports specified in Sec. 63.1090.
Monitoring Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
Sec. 63.1085 How must I monitor for leaks to cooling water?
You must monitor for leaks to cooling water according to the
requirements in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a) Monitor the cooling water for HAP (either in total or
speciated) or other representative substances (e.g., total organic
carbon or volatile organic compounds (VOC)) that indicate the presence
of a leak in the heat exchange system.
(b) Monitor the cooling water monthly for heat exchange systems at
existing sources; weekly for heat exchange systems at new sources.
(c) Determine the concentration of the monitored substance in the
cooling water using any method listed in 40 CFR part 136, as long as
the method is sensitive to concentrations as low as 10 ppmw. Use the
same method for both entrance and exit samples. Alternative methods may
be used upon approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator.
(d) Take a minimum of three sets of samples at each entrance and
exit as defined in Sec. 63.1086(a).
(e) Calculate the average entrance and exit concentrations,
correcting for the addition of make-up water and evaporative losses, if
applicable. Using a one-sided statistical procedure at the 0.05 level
of significance, if the exit mean concentration is at least 1 ppmw or
10 percent of the entrance mean, whichever is greater, you have
detected a leak.
[[Page 76441]]
Sec. 63.1086 Where must I monitor for leaks to cooling water?
You must collect samples at the entrance and exit of each
nondirect-contact heat exchanger in the ethylene manufacturing process
unit used to cool fluids containing 5 percent by weight organic HAP (or
other mentioned substances) or greater.
Repair Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
Sec. 63.1087 What actions must I take if a leak is detected?
If a leak is detected, you must comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section unless repair is delayed
according to Sec. 63.1088.
(a) Repair the leak as soon as practical but not later than 15
calender days after you received the results of monitoring tests that
indicated a leak. You must repair the leak unless you demonstrate that
the results are due to a condition other than a leak.
(b) Once the leak has been repaired, confirm that the heat exchange
system has been repaired according to the monitoring requirements in
Secs. 63.1085 and 63.1086 within 7 calender days of the repair or
startup, whichever is later.
Sec. 63.1088 In what situations may I delay leak repair, and what
actions must I take for delay of repair?
You may delay repair of heat exchange systems for which leaks have
been detected if the leaking equipment is isolated from the process.
You may also delay repair if repair is technically infeasible without a
shutdown, and you meet one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section.
(a) If a shutdown is expected within 15 calendar days of
determining delay of repair is necessary, you are not required to have
a special shutdown before that planned shutdown.
(b) If a shutdown is not expected within 15 calendar days of
determining delay of repair is necessary, you may delay repair if a
shutdown for repair would cause greater emissions than the potential
emissions from delaying repair until the next shutdown of the process
equipment associated with the leaking heat exchanger. You must document
the basis for the determination that a shutdown for repair would cause
greater emissions than the emissions likely to result from delay of
repair. The documentation process must include the activities in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Specify a schedule for completing the repair as soon as
practical.
(2) Calculate the potential emissions from the leaking heat
exchanger by multiplying the concentration of HAP (or other monitored
substances) in the cooling water from the leaking heat exchanger by the
flowrate of the cooling water from the leaking heat exchanger and by
the expected duration of the delay.
(3) Determine emissions from purging and depressurizing the
equipment that will result from the unscheduled shutdown for the
repair.
(c) If repair is delayed for reasons other than those specified in
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you may delay repair a maximum of
30 calendar days. You must demonstrate that the necessary parts or
personnel were not available.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
Sec. 63.1089 What records must I keep?
You must keep the records in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section, according to the requirements of Sec. 63.1109(c).
(a) Monitoring data required by Sec. 63.1085 that indicates a leak,
the date the leak was detected, or, if applicable, the basis for
determining there is no leak.
(b) The dates of efforts to repair leaks.
(c) The method or procedures used to confirm repair of a leak, and
the date the repair was confirmed.
(d) Documentation of delay of repair as specified in Sec. 63.1088.
Sec. 63.1090 What reports must I submit?
If you delay repair for your heat exchange system, you must report
the delay of repair in the semiannual report required by
Sec. 63.1110(e). If the leak remains unrepaired, you must continue to
report the delay of repair in semiannual reports until you repair the
leak. You must include the information in paragraphs (a) through (e) of
this section in the semiannual report.
(a) The fact that a leak was detected, and the date that the leak
was detected.
(b) Whether or not the leak has been repaired.
(c) The reasons for delay of repair. If you delayed the repair as
provided in Sec. 63.1088(b), documentation of emissions estimates.
(d) If a leak remains unrepaired, the expected date of repair.
(e) If a leak is repaired, the date the leak was successfully
repaired.
Background for Waste Requirements
Sec. 63.1091 What do the waste requirements do?
The waste requirements in this subpart require you to comply with
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, National Emission Standards
for Benzene Waste Operations. Because the requirements of subpart FF of
40 CFR part 61 regulate benzene emissions and this subpart regulates
HAP, there are some differences between the ethylene production waste
requirements and those of subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61. Additionally,
some compliance options available in subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61 do
not apply to ethylene production sources.
Sec. 63.1092 What are the major differences between the requirements
of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, and the waste requirements for ethylene
production sources?
The major differences between the requirements of 40 CFR part 61,
subpart FF and the requirements for ethylene production sources are
listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) The requirements for ethylene production sources apply to all
ethylene production sources that are part of a major source. The
requirements do not include a provision to exempt sources with a total
annual benzene quantity less than 10 megagrams per year, or any similar
cutoff, from control requirements.
(b) The requirements for ethylene production sources apply to waste
streams containing any of the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart,
not only waste streams containing benzene.
(c) The requirements for ethylene production sources do not include
the compliance options at 40 CFR 61.342(c)(3)(ii), (d) and (e).
Applicability for Waste Requirements
Sec. 63.1093 Does this subpart apply to my waste streams?
The waste stream provisions of this subpart apply to your waste
streams if you own or operate an ethylene production facility expressly
referenced to this subpart XX from 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.
Sec. 63.1094 What waste streams are exempt from the requirements of
this subpart?
The types of waste described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section are exempt from this subpart.
(a) Waste in the form of gases or vapors that is emitted from
process fluids.
(b) Waste that is contained in a segregated storm water sewer
system.
Waste Requirements
Sec. 63.1095 What specific requirements must I comply with?
For waste containing the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart, you
must
[[Page 76442]]
comply with all of the requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, as
modified by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) Use the term ``HAP'' instead of ``benzene'' everywhere
``benzene'' appears in 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, unless Table 2 to
this subpart instructs an alternate substitution for a phrase
containing ``benzene,'' as discussed in paragraph (b) of this section.
For the purposes of the waste requirements of this subpart, HAP means
any of the compounds listed in Table 1 to this subpart.
(b) Apply the wording differences listed in Table 2 to this subpart
as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Table 2 to this subpart gives a referenced section of 40 CFR
part 61, subpart FF, and a phrase that appears in that section. Instead
of the phrase in 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, use the phrase in the last
column of Table 2 to this subpart to produce the requirements for
ethylene production sources.
(2) If a section of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, references another
section of subpart FF, you must comply with the referenced section,
except use the wording differences specified in Table 2 to this subpart
to produce the requirements for ethylene production sources.
(c) Table 3 to this subpart shows the sections of 40 CFR part 61,
subpart FF, that are not included in the waste requirements of this
subpart.
Sec. 63.1096 What requirements must I comply with if I transfer waste
offsite?
If you elect to transfer waste offsite, you must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(a) Include a notice with the shipment or transport of each waste
stream. The notice shall state that the waste stream contains organic
HAP that are to be treated in accordance with the provisions of this
subpart. When the transport is continuous or ongoing (for example,
discharge to a publicly-owned treatment works), the notice shall be
submitted to the treatment operator initially and whenever there is a
change in the required treatment.
(b) You may not transfer the waste stream unless the transferee has
submitted to the EPA a written certification that the transferee will
manage and treat any waste stream received from a source subject to the
requirements of this subpart in accordance with the requirements of
this subpart. The certifying entity may revoke the written
certification by sending a written statement to the EPA and you giving
at least 90 days notice that the certifying entity is rescinding
acceptance of responsibility for compliance with the regulatory
provisions listed in this paragraph (b). Upon expiration of the notice
period, you may not transfer the waste stream to the treatment
operation.
(c) By providing this written certification to the EPA, the
certifying entity accepts responsibility for compliance with the
regulatory provisions in paragraph (b) of this section with respect to
any shipment of waste covered by the written certification. Failure to
abide by any of those provisions with respect to such shipments may
result in enforcement action by the EPA against the certifying entity
in accordance with the enforcement provisions applicable to violations
of those provisions by owners or operators of sources.
(d) Written certifications and revocation statements to the EPA
from the transferees of waste shall be signed by the responsible
official of the certifying entity, provide the name and address of the
certifying entity, and be sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office
at the addresses listed in 40 CFR 63.13. Such written certifications
are not transferable by the treater.
Definitions for Waste Requirements
Sec. 63.1097 What definitions do I need to know?
(a) Unless defined in paragraph (b) of this section, definitions
for terms used in this subpart are provided in the Clean Air Act,
Sec. 63.1103(e), or Sec. 61.341, except use the wording differences
specified in Table 2 to this subpart to produce the definitions for
ethylene production sources.
(b) The following definitions apply to terms used in this subpart:
Process wastewater means water which comes in contact with any of
the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart during manufacturing or
processing operations conducted within an ethylene manufacturing
process unit. Process wastewater is not organic wastes, process fluids,
product tank drawdown, cooling water blowdown, steam trap condensate,
or landfill leachate. Process wastewater includes direct-contact
cooling water.
Implementation and Enforcement
Sec. 63.1098 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA, or a
delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State,
local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to
implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional
Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or
tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of
this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emissions standards
in Secs. 63.1084, 63.1085 and 63.1095, under Sec. 63.6(g). Where these
standards reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be
delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced
subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
TABLES TO SUBPART XX
Table 1 to Subpart XX.--Hazardous Air Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS
Hazardous air pollutant a number a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene...................................................... 71432
1,3-Butadiene................................................ 106990
Cumene....................................................... 98828
Ethyl benzene................................................ 100414
Hexane....................................................... 110543
Naphthalene.................................................. 91203
Styrene...................................................... 100425
Toluene...................................................... 108883
o-Xylene..................................................... 95476
m-Xylene..................................................... 108383
p-Xylene..................................................... 106423
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Includes all isomers of listed pollutant although isomers may have a
different CAS number.
[[Page 76443]]
Table 2 to Subpart XX.--Specific Differences in Requirements of This Subpart and 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart
XX, in * * * Instead of the phrase: Use the phrase a:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 61.341............................ benzene......................... any HAP.
Sec. 61.342(c)......................... at which the total annual to which the wastewater requirements
benzene quantity from facility of this subpart XX apply.
waste is equal to or greater
than 10 Mg/yr as determined in
paragraph (a) of this section.
Sec. 61.342(c)(1)...................... benzene......................... any HAP.
Sec. 61.342(c)(2)...................... benzene concentration........... total HAP concentration.
Sec. 61.342(c)(3)...................... either paragraph (c)(3)(i) or paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
(ii) of this section.
Sec. 61.348(a)(1)(i)................... level........................... total level.
Sec. 61.348(b)(2)(i)................... benzene......................... total HAP.
Sec. 61.349(a)(2)(i)(A)................ reduce the organic emissions reduce the HAP or total organic
vented to it by 95 weight compound emissions vented to it by
percent or greater. 98 weight percent or greater.
Sec. 61.349(a)(2)(ii).................. recover or control the organic recover or control the HAP or total
emissions vented to it with an organic compound emissions vented
efficiency of 95 weight percent to it with an efficiency of 98
or greater, or shall recover or weight percent or greater.
control the benzene emissions
vented to it with an efficiency
of 98 weight percent or greater.
Sec. 61.349(a)(2)(iv)(A)............... the device shall recover or the device shall recover or control
control the organic emissions the HAP or total organic compound
vented to it with an efficiency emissions vented to it with an
of 95 weight percent or efficiency of 98 weight percent or
greater, or shall recover or greater.
control the benzene emissions
vented to it with an efficiency
of 98 weight percent or greater.
Sec. 61.349(a)(2)(iv)(B)............... the control device will achieve the control device will achieve an
an emission control efficiency emission control efficiency of 98
of either 95 percent or greater percent or greater for HAP or total
for organic compounds or 98 organic compounds.
percent or greater for benzene.
Sec. 61.354(a)(1)...................... at least once per month by continuously.
collecting and analyzing one or
more samples using the
procedures specified in Sec.
61.355(c)(3).
Sec. 61.354(c)(6)(i)................... either the concentration level the concentration level of the
of the organic compounds or the organic compounds.
concentration level of benzene.
Sec. 61.354(c)(7)(i)................... either the concentration level the concentration level of the
of the organic compounds or the organic compounds.
benzene concentration level.
Sec. 61.354(c)(8)...................... either the concentration level the concentration level of the
of the organic compounds or the organic compounds.
benzene concentration level.
Sec. 61.354(d)......................... either the concentration level the concentration level of the
of the organic compounds or the organic compounds.
concentration level of benzene.
Sec. 61.354(d)......................... either the organic concentration the organic concentration.
or the benzene concentration.
Sec. 61.355(c)(3)(v)................... benzene......................... total HAP.
Sec. 61.355(e)(3)...................... benzene......................... total HAP.
Sec. 61.355(e)(4)...................... benzene......................... total HAP.
Sec. 61.355(f)(3)...................... benzene......................... total HAP.
Sec. 61.355(f)(4)(iii)................. C=Concentration of benzene...... C=Sum of concentrations of HAP
measured in the exhaust, ppmv.
Sec. 61.355(f)(4)(iii)................. K=Conversion factor=3.24 kg/ K=Weighted average density of HAP at
m\31\ for benzene. standard conditions, kg/m\3\.
Sec. 61.355(g)......................... benzene concentration........... total HAP concentration.
Sec. 61.355(i)......................... either the organic reduction the HAP or total organic compound
efficiency requirement or the reduction efficiency specified
benzene reduction efficiency under Sec. 61.349(a)(2).
requirement specified under
Sec. 61.349(a)(2).
Sec. 61.355(i)(3)(iii)................. benzene concentration........... concentration of HAP i.
Sec. 61.355(i)(3)(iii)................. molecular weight of benzene..... molecular weight of HAP i.
Sec. 61.355(i)(3)(iii)................. number of organic compounds in number of organic compounds or HAP
the vent stream. in the vent stream.
Sec. 61.355(i)(4)...................... benzene......................... total HAP.
Sec. 61.356(b)(1)...................... waste stream identification, waste stream identification, whether
water content, whether or not or not the waste stream is a
the waste stream is a process process wastewater stream, range of
wastewater stream, annual waste HAP concentrations, and annual
quantity, range of benzene average flow-weighted HAP
concentrations, annual average concentrations.
flow-weighted benzene
concentration, and annual
benzene quantity.
Sec. 61.356(j)(8)...................... organics or concentration of organics.
benzene.
Sec. 61.356(j)(8)...................... organics or the concentration of organics.
benzene.
Sec. 61.356(j)(9)...................... organics or the concentration of organics.
benzene.
Sec. 61.357(a)......................... within 90 days after January 7, as part of the initial notification
1993. report required in paragraph (c) of
Sec. 63.1110.
Sec. 61.357(a)......................... Sec. 61.342.................... 40 CFR part 63, subpart XX.
Sec. 61.357(a)......................... the report shall include the the report shall include the
following information:. information in paragraphs (a)(2)
and (a)(3) except (a)(3)(i) of this
section.
[[Page 76444]]
Sec. 61.357(a)(3)(iii)................. Annual waste quantity for the If the stream is managed or treated
waste stream. in an exempt unit according to Sec.
61.348(b), annual waste quantity
for the waste stream.
Sec. 61.357(a)(4)...................... paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3). paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) except
(a)(3)(i) of this section.
Sec. 61.357(d)......................... if the total annual benzene the owner or operator to which the
quantity from facility waste is wastewater requirements of 40 CFR
equal to or greater than 10 Mg/ part 63, subpart XX apply.
yr, then the owner or operator.
Sec. 61.357(d)(1)...................... within 90 days after January 7, with the Notification of Compliance
1993. Status report required by paragraph
(d) of Sec. 63.1110.
Sec. 61.357(d)(2)...................... paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) except
this section. (a)(3)(i) of this section.
Sec. 61.357(d)(7)(iii)................. concentration of benzene........ total concentration of HAP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a For the purpose of this table and the waste requirements of this subpart, HAP means any of the compounds
listed in Table 1 to this subpart.
Table 3 to Subpart XX.--Sections of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF, That Are
Not Included in the Requirements for This Subpart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Paragraphs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
61.340.............................. all.
61.342.............................. (a), (b), (c)(3)(ii), (d), (e),
(f).
61.348.............................. (d)(3), (d)(4).
61.355.............................. (a), (j), (k).
61.356.............................. (b)(2)(ii),(b)(3) through (5).
61.357.............................. (a)(1), (a)(3)(i), (b), (c),
(d)(3) through (5).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart SS--[Amended]
3. Section 63.983 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii);
b. Revising the heading for paragraph (b); and
c. Adding paragraph (b)(4).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.983 Closed vent systems.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Properly install, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that
is capable of taking periodic readings. Records shall be generated as
specified in Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(A). The flow indicator shall be
installed at the entrance to any bypass line.
(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting position
with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. Records shall be
generated as specified in Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(B).
* * * * *
(b) Closed vent system inspection and monitoring requirements. * *
*
(4) For each bypass line, the owner or operator shall comply with
paragraph (b)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) If a flow indicator is used, take a reading at least once every
15 minutes.
(ii) If the bypass line valve is secured in the non-diverting
position, visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least once
every month to verify that the valve is maintained in the non-diverting
position, and the vent stream is not diverted through the bypass line.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.992 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.992 Implementation and enforcement.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA, or a
delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State,
local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to
implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional
Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or
tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of
this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emissions standards
in Secs. 63.983(a) and (d), 63.984, 63.685(a), 63.986(a), 63.987(a),
63.988(a), 63.990(a), 63.993(a), 63.994(a), and 63.995(a) under
Sec. 63.6(g). Where these standards reference another subpart, the
cited provisions will be delegated according to the delegation
provisions of the referenced subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
5. Section 63.996 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(7) through
(10) as follows:
Sec. 63.996 General monitoring requirements for control and recovery
devices.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(7) For each CPMS, the owner or operator must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period.
(ii) To calculate a valid hourly average, there must be at least
four equally spaced values for that hour, excluding data collected
during the periods described in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
(iii) Calculate a daily average using all of the valid hourly
averages for each day.
(8) For each temperature monitoring device, meet the requirements
in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(ii) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor
with a minimum tolerance of 2.2 deg.C or 0.75 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger.
(iii) For a cryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor
with a minimum tolerance of 2.2 deg.C or 2
[[Page 76445]]
percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger.
(iv) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(v) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the
minor division of at least 11 deg.C.
(vi) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual.
Following the electronic calibration, conduct a temperature sensor
validation check in which a second or redundant temperature sensor
placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading
within 16.7 deg.C of the process temperature sensor's reading.
(vii) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature
range or install a new temperature sensor.
(viii) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and
all electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
(9) For each pressure measurement device, the owner or operator
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (vii) of
this section.
(i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that
provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
(ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(iii) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or
a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure
range.
(iv) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(v) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(vi) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(vii) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(10) For each pH measurement device, the owner or operator must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(10)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of pH.
(ii) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(iii) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every
8 hours of process operation.
(iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.997 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii);
b. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii) introductory text;
c. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(D);
d. Adding paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(E);
e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iv) introductory text;
f. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(B)(2) and (3); and
g. Adding paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(F) through (K).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.997 Performance test and compliance assessment requirements
for control devices.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Gas volumetric flow rate. The gas volumetric flow rate shall
be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, as appropriate.
(iii) Total organic regulated material or TOC concentration. To
determine compliance with a parts per million by volume total organic
regulated material or TOC limit, the owner or operator shall use Method
18 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as applicable. Alternatively,
any other method or data that have been validated according to the
applicable procedures in Method 301 of appendix A to this part may be
used. The procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A) through (E)
of this section shall be used to calculate parts per million by volume
concentration, corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is
the control device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust
the emissions.
* * * * *
(D) To measure the total organic regulated material concentration
at the outlet of a combustion control device, use Method 18 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, or ASTM D6420-99 (incorporated by reference). For
a combustion control device, you must first determine which regulated
material compounds are present in the inlet gas stream using process
knowledge or the screening procedure described in Method 18. In
conducting the performance test, analyze samples collected at the
outlet of the combustion control device as specified in Method 18 or
ASTM D6420-99 for the regulated material compounds present at the inlet
of the control device.
(E) To measure the TOC concentration of the outlet vent stream, use
Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, according to the procedures
in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(E)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Calibrate the instrument on the predominant regulated material
compound.
(2) The test results are acceptable if the response from the high
level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation for
the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is
zeroed on its most sensitive scale.
(3) The span value of the analyzer must be less than 100 parts per
million by volume.
(4) Report the results as carbon, calculated according to Equation
25A-1 of Method 25A.
(iv) Percent reduction calculation. To determine compliance with a
percent reduction requirement, the owner or operator shall use Method
18, 25, or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as applicable.
Alternatively, any other method or data that have been validated
according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of appendix A to
this part may be used. The procedures specified in paragraphs
(e)(2)(iv)(A) through (K) of this section shall be used to calculate
percent reduction efficiency.
* * * * *
(F) To measure inlet and outlet concentrations of total organic
regulated material, use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or
ASTM D6420-99 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 63.14).
In conducting the performance test, collect and analyze samples as
specified in Method 18 or ASTM D6420-99. You must collect samples
simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the control device. If the
performance test is for a combustion control device, you must first
determine which regulated material compounds are present in the inlet
gas stream (i.e., uncontrolled emissions) using process knowledge or
the screening procedure described in Method 18. Quantify the emissions
for the regulated material compounds present in the inlet gas stream
for both the inlet and outlet gas streams for the combustion device.
(G) To determine inlet and outlet concentrations of TOC, use Method
25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Measure the total gaseous non-methane
organic (TGNMO) concentration of the inlet and outlet vent streams
using the procedures
[[Page 76446]]
of Method 25. Use the TGNMO concentration in Equations 4 and 5 of
paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
(H) Method 25A may be used instead of Method 25 to measure inlet
and outlet concentrations of TOC if the condition in either paragraph
(e)(2)(iv)(H)(1) or (2) of this section is met.
(1) The concentration at the inlet to the control system and the
required level of control would result in exhaust TGNMO concentrations
of 50 parts per million by volume or less.
(2) Because of the high efficiency of the control device, the
anticipated TGNMO concentration of the control device exhaust is 50
parts per million by volume or less, regardless of the inlet
concentration.
(I) To measure hydrogen halide and halogen concentrations, use
Method 26 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Use a minimum sampling time
of 1 hour. Use Method 26A in lieu of Method 26 when measuring emissions
at the outlet of a scrubber where the potential for mist carryover
exists.
(J) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device
contains formaldehyde, you must conduct emissions testing according to
paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(J)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If you elect to comply with a percent reduction requirement and
formaldehyde is the principal regulated material compound (i.e.,
greater than 50 percent of the regulated material compounds in the
stream by volume), you must use Method 316 or 320 of appendix A to this
part to measure formaldehyde at the inlet and outlet of the control
device. Use the percent reduction in formaldehyde as a surrogate for
the percent reduction in total regulated material emissions.
(2) If you elect to comply with an outlet total organic regulated
material concentration or TOC concentration limit, and the uncontrolled
or inlet gas stream to the control device contains greater than 10
percent (by volume) formaldehyde, you must use Method 316 or 320 of
appendix A to this part to separately determine the formaldehyde
concentration. Calculate the total organic regulated material
concentration or TOC concentration by totaling the formaldehyde
emissions measured using Method 316 or 320 and the other regulated
material compound emissions measured using Method 18 or 25/25A.
(K) You may use ASTM D6420-99 (incorporated by reference as
specified in Sec. 63.14) in lieu of Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, if a minimum of one sample/analysis cycle is completed at
least every 15 minutes, and the condition in paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(K)(1)
or (2) of this section is met.
(1) The target compounds are listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99, and the target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by
volume and 100 parts per million by volume.
(2) The target compounds are not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99, but are potentially detected by mass spectrometry. In this
case, an additional system continuing calibration check after each run,
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of ASTM D6420-99, must be followed,
documented, and submitted with the performance test report even if you
do not use a moisture condenser or the compound is not considered
soluble.
* * * * *
Subpart TT--[Amended]
7. Section 63.1000 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1000 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Implementation and enforcement. This subpart can be implemented
and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated authority such as the
applicable State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has
delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact
the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is
delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of
this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(i) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emissions standards
in Secs. 63.1003 through 63.1015, under Sec. 63.6(g). Where these
standards reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be
delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced
subpart.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(iv) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under
Sec. 63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(v) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(2) [Reserved]
Subpart UU--[Amended]
8. Section 63.1019 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.1019 Applicability.
* * * * *
(f) Implementation and enforcement. This subpart can be implemented
and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated authority such as the
applicable State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has
delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact
the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is
delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency.
(g) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of
this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emissions standards
in Secs. 63.1022 through 62.1034, under Sec. 63.6(g), and the standards
for quality improvement programs in Sec. 63.1035. Where these standards
reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated
according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Subpart WW--[Amended]
9. Section 63.1067 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1067 Implementation and enforcement.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA, or a
delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State,
local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to
implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional
Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or
tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to
[[Page 76447]]
a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this part, the
authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the
State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emissions standards
in Secs. 63.1062 and 63.1063(a) and (b) for alternative means of
emission limitation, under Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Subpart YY--[Amended]
10. Section 63.1100 is amended by:
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a);
b. Adding four entries in alphabetical order and two footnotes to
Table 1;
c. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(ii), (g)(2), and (g)(5) and
d. Adding paragraph (g)(6).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1100 Applicability.
(a) General. This subpart applies to source categories and affected
sources specified in Sec. 63.1103(a) through (h). * * *
* * * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 63.1100(a).--Source Category MACT a Applicability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category
Source category Storage vessels Process vents Transfer racks Equipment leaks Wastewater Other MACT
streams requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Carbon Black Production........ No............. Yes............ No............. No............. No............. No............. Sec. 63.1103(f)
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ No............. Sec. 63.1103(g)
* * * * * * *
Ethylene Production............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes c.......... Sec. 63.1103(e)
* * * * * * *
Spandex Production............. Yes............ Yes............ No............. No............. No............. Yes d.......... Sec. 63.1103(h)
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c Heat exchange systems as defined in Sec. 63.1103(e)(2).
d Fiber spinning lines.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102 for an
affected source subject to this subpart, a storage vessel that is part
of an existing source that must be controlled according to the storage
vessel requirements of this subpart, and that must be controlled
according to the storage vessel requirements of subpart Ka or Kb of 40
CFR part 60 is required to comply only with the storage vessel
requirements of this subpart.
(2) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for process vents.
(i) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102 for an
affected source subject to this subpart, a process vent that is part of
an existing source that must be controlled according to the process
vent requirements of this subpart, and that must be controlled
according to the process vent requirements of subpart G (the HON) of
this part is in compliance with this subpart if it complies with either
the process vent requirements of this subpart or subpart G of this
part, and the owner or operator has notified the Administrator in the
Notification of Compliance Status report required by
Sec. 63.1110(a)(4).
(ii) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102 for an
affected source subject to this subpart, a process vent that is part of
an existing source that must be controlled according to the process
vent requirements of this subpart, and that must be controlled
according to the process vent requirements of subpart RRR or NNN of 40
CFR part 60 is required to comply only with the process vent
requirements of this subpart.
* * * * *
(5) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for wastewater for
source categories other than ethylene production. (i) After the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102 for an affected source
subject to this subpart, a wastewater stream that is subject to the
wastewater requirements of this subpart and the wastewater requirements
of subparts F and G of this part (the HON) shall be deemed to be in
compliance with the requirements of this subpart if it complies with
either set of requirements. In any instance where a source subject to
this subpart is collocated with a Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) source, and a single wastewater
treatment facility treats both Group 1 wastewaters and wastewater
residuals from the source subject to this subpart and wastewaters from
the SOCMI source, a certification by the treatment facility that they
will manage and treat the waste in conformity with the specific control
requirements set forth in Secs. 63.133 through 63.147 will also be
deemed sufficient to satisfy the certification requirements for
wastewater treatment under this subpart. This paragraph does not apply
to the ethylene production source category.
(ii) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102 for an
affected source subject to this subpart, a wastewater stream that is
subject to control requirements in the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP
(subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61) and this subpart is required to comply
with both rules. This paragraph (g)(5)(ii) does not apply to the
ethylene production source category.
(6) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for waste for the
ethylene production source category.
(i) After the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.1102, a waste
stream that is conveyed, stored, or treated in a
[[Page 76448]]
wastewater stream management unit, waste management unit, or wastewater
treatment system that receives streams subject to both the control
requirements of Sec. 63.1103(e)(2) for ethylene production sources and
the provisions of Secs. 63.133 through 63.147 shall comply as specified
in paragraphs (g)(6)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. Compliance with
the provisions of this paragraph (g)(6)(i) shall constitute compliance
with the requirements of this subpart for that waste stream.
(A) Comply with the provisions in Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 and
63.140 for all equipment used in the storage and conveyance of the
waste stream.
(B) Comply with the provisions in Secs. 63.1103(e), 63.138, and
63.139 for the treatment and control of the waste stream.
(C) Comply with the provisions in Secs. 63.143 through 63.148 for
monitoring and inspections of equipment and for recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. The owner or operator is not required to comply
with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
associated with the treatment and control requirements in Secs. 61.355
through 61.357.
(ii) After the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.1102,
compliance with Sec. 63.1103(e) shall constitute compliance with the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP (subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61) for
waste streams that are subject to both the control requirements of
Sec. 63.1103(e)(2) for ethylene production sources and the control
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF.
11. Section 63.1101 is amended by:
a. Adding a sentence at the end of the introductory text;
b. Adding a sentence to the end of the definition of ``process
vent;''
c. Revising the definitions of ``shutdown'' and ``total organic
compounds.''
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1101 Definitions.
* * * The definitions in this section do not apply to waste
requirements for ethylene production sources.
* * * * *
Process vent * * * This definition does not apply to ethylene
production sources. Ethylene manufacturing process vents are defined in
Sec. 63.1103(e)(2).
* * * * *
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of a regulated source and
equipment required or used to comply with this subpart, or the emptying
and degassing of a storage vessel. For the purposes of this subpart,
shutdown includes, but is not limited to, periodic maintenance,
replacement of equipment, or repair. Shutdown does not include the
routine rinsing or washing of equipment in batch operation between
batches. Shutdown includes the decoking of ethylene manufacturing
process unit furnaces.
* * * * *
Total organic compounds or (TOC) means the total gaseous organic
compounds (minus methane and ethane) in a vent stream, with the
concentrations expressed on a carbon basis.
* * * * *
12. Section 63.1102 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1102 Compliance Schedule.
(a) General requirements. Affected sources, as defined in
Sec. 63.1103(a)(1)(i) for acetyl resins production;
Sec. 63.1103(b)(1)(i) for acrylic and monacrylic fiber production;
Sec. 63.1103(c)(1)(i) for hydrogen fluoride production;
Sec. 63.1103(d)(1)(i) for polycarbonate production;
Sec. 63.1103(e)(1)(i) for ethylene production; Sec. 63.1103(f)(1)(i)
for carbon black production; Sec. 63.1103(g)(1)(i) for cyanide
chemicals manufacturing; or Sec. 63.1103(h)(1)(i) for spandex
production shall comply with the appropriate provisions of this subpart
and the subparts referenced by this subpart according to the schedule
in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate. Proposal
and effective dates are specified in Table 1 to this section.
(1) Compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources. (i) The
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected source that
commences construction or reconstruction after the proposal date, and
that has an initial startup before the effective date of standards for
an affected source, shall comply with this subpart no later than the
applicable effective date in Table 1 to this section.
(ii) The owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected
source that has an initial startup after the applicable effective date
in Table 1 to Sec. 63.1102 shall comply with this subpart upon startup
of the source.
(iii) The owner or operator of an affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after the proposal date, but before the
effective date in Table 1 to Sec. 63.1102, shall comply with this
subpart no later than the date 3 years after the effective date if the
conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section are
met.
(A) The promulgated standards are more stringent than the proposed
standards.
(B) The owner or operator complies with this subpart as proposed
during the 3-year period immediately after the effective date of
standards for the affected source.
(2) Compliance dates for existing sources. (i) The owner or
operator of an existing affected source shall comply with the
requirements of this subpart within 3 years after the effective date of
standards for the affected source.
(ii) The owner or operator of an area source that increases its
emissions of (or its potential to emit) HAP such that the source
becomes a major source shall be subject to the relevant standards for
existing sources under this subpart. Such sources shall comply with the
relevant standards within 3 years of becoming a major source.
Table 1 to Sec. 63.1102.--Source Category Proposal and Effective Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category Proposal date Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Acetal Resins Production..... October 14, 1998.. June 29, 1999.
2. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers October 14, 1998.. June 29, 1999.
Production.
3. Hydrogen Fluoride Production. October 14, 1998.. June 29, 1999.
4. Polycarbonate Production..... October 14, 1998.. June 29, 1999.
5. Ethylene Production.......... December 6, 2000.. [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL SUBPART
IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
6. Carbon Black Production...... December 6, 2000.. [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL SUBPART
IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
7. Cyanide Chemicals December 6, 2000.. [DATE OF
Manufacturing. PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL SUBPART
IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
[[Page 76449]]
8. Spandex Production........... December 6, 2000.. [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL SUBPART
IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
13. Section 63.1103 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) through
(h), and adding Tables 7 through 10 as follows:
Sec. 63.1103 Source category-specific applicability, definitions, and
requirements.
* * * * *
(e) Ethylene production applicability, definitions, and
requirements--(1) Applicability.--(i) Affected source. For the ethylene
production (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section) source
category, the affected source shall comprise all emission points listed
in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) through (F) of this section that are
associated with an ethylene manufacturing process unit located at a
major source, as defined in section 112(a) of the Act.
(A) All storage vessels (as defined in Sec. 63.1101) that store
liquids containing organic HAP.
(B) All process vents (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section) from continuous unit operations.
(C) All transfer racks (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section) that load HAP-containing material.
(D) Equipment (as defined in Sec. 63.1101) that contains or
contacts organic HAP.
(E) All waste streams (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section) associated with the ethylene production process.
(F) All heat exchange systems (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section) associated with the ethylene production process.
(ii) Exceptions. The emission points listed in paragraphs
(e)(1)(ii)(A) through (I) of this section are in the ethylene
production source category but are not subject to the requirements of
paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(A) Equipment that is located within an ethylene manufacturing
process unit that is subject to this subpart but does not contain
organic HAP.
(B) Stormwater from segregated sewers.
(C) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems in segregated
sewers.
(D) Spills.
(E) Water from safety showers.
(F) Water from testing of deluge systems.
(G) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain organic HAP as
impurities.
(H) Transfer racks, loading arms, or loading hoses that only
transfer liquids containing organic HAP as impurities.
(I) Transfer racks, loading arms, or loading hoses that vapor
balance during all transfer operations.
(iii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for affected
sources as defined in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section is specified
in Sec. 63.1102.
(2) Definitions. Ethylene manufacturing process vent means a gas
stream containing greater than 0.005 weight-percent and 20 parts per
million by volume HAP that is continuously discharged during operation
of an ethylene manufacturing process unit, as defined in this section.
Ethylene manufacturing process vents are gas streams that are
discharged to the atmosphere (or the point of entry into a control
device, if any) either directly or after passing through one or more
recovery devices. Ethylene manufacturing process vents do not include
relief valve discharges; gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas system;
leaks from equipment regulated under this subpart; episodic or
nonroutine releases such as those associated with startup, shutdown,
and malfunction; and in situ sampling systems (online analyzers).
Ethylene manufacturing process unit means a process unit that is
specifically utilized for the production of ethylene/propylene,
including all separation and purification processes.
Ethylene production means the process by which ethylene/propylene
is produced as a product or an intermediate by either a pyrolysis
process (hydrocarbons subjected to high temperatures in the presence of
steam) or separation from a petroleum refining stream. The ethylene
production process includes the separation of ethylene/propylene from
associated streams such as products made from compounds composed of
four carbon atoms (C4), pyrolysis gasoline, and pyrolysis fuel oil. The
ethylene production process does not include the manufacture of
synthetic organic chemicals such as the production of butadiene from
the C4 stream and aromatics from pyrolysis gasoline.
Heat exchange system means any cooling tower system or once-through
cooling water system (e.g., river or pond water). A heat exchange
system can include an entire recirculating or once-through cooling
system.
Transfer rack means the collection of loading arms and loading
hoses, at a single loading rack, that are associated with an ethylene
manufacturing process unit subject to this subpart and are used to fill
tank trucks and/or railcars with organic HAP. Transfer rack includes
the associated pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other
piping and valves. Transfer rack does not include racks, arms, or hoses
that contain organic HAP only as impurities; or racks, arms, or hoses
that vapor balance during all loading operations.
Waste means any material resulting from industrial, commercial,
mining, or agricultural operations, or from community activities, that
is discarded or is being accumulated, stored, or physically,
chemically, thermally, or biologically treated prior to being
discarded, recycled, or discharged.
Waste stream means the waste generated by a particular process
unit, product tank, or waste management unit. The characteristics of
the waste stream (e.g., flow rate, HAP concentration, water content)
are determined at the point of waste generation. Examples of a waste
stream include process wastewater, product tank drawdown, sludge and
slop oil removed from waste management units, and landfill leachate.
(3) Requirements. Table 7 to this section specifies the ethylene
production source category requirements for new and existing sources.
The owner or operator must control organic HAP emissions from each
affected source emission point by meeting the applicable requirements
specified in Table 7 to Sec. 63.1103. An owner or operator must perform
the applicability assessment procedures and methods for process vents
specified in Sec. 63.1104, excluding paragraphs (d), (g), (h), (i),
(j), (l)(1), and (n). An owner or operator must perform the
applicability assessment procedures and methods for equipment leaks
specified in Sec. 63.1107. General compliance, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements are specified in Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1112.
Minimization of emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunctions must
be addressed in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by
Sec. 63.1111; the plan must also establish reporting
[[Page 76450]]
and recordkeeping of such events. Procedures for approval of alternate
means of emission limitations are specified in Sec. 63.1113.
Table 7 to Sec. 63.1103.--What Are My Requirements if I Own or Operate
an Ethylene Production Existing or New Affected Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A storage vessel (as The maximum a. Fill the vessel
defined in Sec. 63.1101) true vapor through a submerged
that stores liquid pressure of pipe; or
containing organic HAP. total organic b. Comply with the
HAP is 3.4 vessels with capacities
kilopascals 95 cubic
but 76.6 meters.
kilopascals
and
the capacity of
the vessel is
4
cubic meters
but 95 cubic
meters.
2. A storage vessel (as The maximum a. Comply with the
defined in Sec. 63.1101) true vapor requirements of subpart
that stores liquid pressure of WW of this part; or
containing organic HAP. total organic b. Reduce emissions of
HAP is 3.4 weight-percent by
kilopascals venting emissions
but 76.6 through a closed vent
kilopascals; system to any
and combination of control
the capacity of devices meeting the
the vessel is requirements of subpart
95 SS of this part, as
cubic meters. specified in Sec.
63.982(a)(1).
3. A storage vessel (as The maximum Reduce emissions of total
defined in Sec. 63.1101) true vapor organic HAP by 98 weight-
that stores liquid pressure of percent by venting
containing organic HAP. total organic emissions through a
HAP is 76.6 any combination of
kilopascals. control devices meeting
the requirements of
subpart SS of this part,
as specified in Sec.
63.982(a)(1).
4. A process vent (as The vent stream Reduce emissions of
defined in paragraph (e)(2) has an average organic HAP by 98 weight-
of this section) from flow rate 0.011 organic HAP or TOC to a
scmm; and concentration of 20
the vent stream parts per million by
has a total volume; whichever is
organic HAP less stringent, by
concentration venting emissions
50 through a closed vent
parts per system to any
million by combination of control
volume. devices meeting the
requirements of subpart
SS of this part, as
specified in Sec.
63.982(a)(2).
5. A transfer rack (as Materials a. Reduce emissions of
defined in paragraph (e)(2) loaded have a organic HAP by 98 weight-
of this section). true vapor percent; or reduce
pressure of organic HAP or TOC to a
total organic concentration of 20
HAP 3.4 volume; whichever is
kilopascals; less stringent, by
and venting emissions
76 through a closed vent
cubic meters system to any
per day combination of control
(averaged over devices as specified in
any Sec. 63.1105; or
consecutive 30- process piping designed
day period) of to collect the HAP-
HAP-containing containing vapors
material is displaced from tank
loaded. trucks or railcars
during loading and to
route it to a process, a
fuel gas system, or a
vapor balance system, as
specified in Sec.
63.1105.
6. Equipment (as defined in The equipment Comply with the
Sec. 63.1101) that contains or requirements of subpart
contains or contacts contacts 5
weight-percent
organic HAP;
and
the equipment
is in service
300
hours per
year; and.
the equipment
is not in
vacuum service.
7. Processes that generate The wastewater Comply with the waste
process wastewater or contains any requirements of subpart
maintenance wastewater (as of the XX of this part. For
defined in paragraph (e)(2) following HAP: ethylene manufacturing
of this section). Benzene, process unit waste
cumene, ethyl stream requirements,
benzene, words have the meanings
hexane, methyl specified in subpart XX.
ethyl ketone,
naphthalene,
phenol,
styrene,
toluene, o-
xylene, m-
xylene, p-
xylene, or 1,3-
butadiene.
8. A heat exchange system ............... Comply with the heat
(as defined in paragraph exchange system
(e)(2) of this section). requirements of subpart
XX of this part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Carbon black production applicability, definitions, and
requirements--(1) Applicability--(i) Affected source. For the carbon
black production source category (as defined in paragraph (f)(2) of
this section), the affected source shall include each carbon black
production process unit located at a major source, as defined in
section 112(a) of the Act. The affected source shall also include all
waste management units, maintenance wastewater, and equipment
components that contain or contact HAP that are associated with the
carbon black production process unit.
(ii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for the carbon
black production affected source, as defined in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of
this section, is specified in Sec. 63.1102.
(2) Definitions.
Carbon black production means the production of carbon black by
either the furnace, thermal, acetylene, or lampblack processes.
Carbon black production process unit means the equipment assembled
and connected by hard-piping or duct work
[[Page 76451]]
to process raw materials to manufacture, store, and transport a carbon
black product. For the purposes of this subpart, a carbon black
production process unit includes reactors and associated operations;
associated recovery devices; and any feed, intermediate and product
storage vessels, product transfer racks, and connected ducts and
piping. A carbon black production process unit includes pumps,
compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling connection
systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors,
instrumentation systems, and control devices or systems.
Dryer means a rotary-kiln dryer that is heated externally and is
used to dry wet pellets in the wet pelletization process.
Main unit filter means the filter that separates the carbon black
from the tailgas.
Miscellaneous process vents means all process vents associated with
a carbon black production process unit other than the main unit filter,
process filter, purge filter, and dryer process vents.
Process filter means the filter that separates the carbon black
from the conveying air.
Purge filter means the filter that separates the carbon black from
the dryer exhaust.
(3) Requirements. Table 8 of this section specifies the carbon
black production standards for existing and new sources. Applicability
assessment procedures and methods are specified in Sec. 63.1104. An
owner or operator of an affected source is not required to perform
applicability tests, or other applicability assessment procedures if
they opt to comply with the most stringent requirements for an
applicable emission point pursuant to this subpart. General compliance,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are specified in
Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1112. Procedures for approval of alternative
means of emission limitations are specified in Sec. 63.1113.
Table 8 to Sec. 63.1103.--What Are My Requirements If I Own or Operate
a Carbon Black Production Existing or New Affected Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A main unit filter process The HAP a. Reduce emissions of
vent. concentration total HAP by using a
of the flare meeting the
emission requirements of subpart
stream is SS of this part; or
equal to or b. Reduce emissions of
greater than total HAP by 98 weight-
260 parts per percent or to a
million by concentration of 20
volume a. parts per million by
volume, whichever is
less stringent, by
venting emissions
through a closed vent
system to any
combination of control
devices meeting the
requirements of subpart
SS of this part, as
specified in Sec.
63.982(a)(2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The weight-percent organic HAP is determined according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.1104(e).
(g) Cyanide chemicals manufacturing applicability, definitions, and
requirements--(1) Applicability--(i) Affected source. For the cyanide
chemicals manufacturing source category, the affected source shall
include each cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit located at a
major source, as defined in section 112(a) of the Act. The affected
source shall also include all waste management units, maintenance
wastewater, and equipment (as defined in Sec. 63.1101) that contain or
contact cyanide chemicals that are associated with the cyanide
chemicals manufacturing process unit.
(ii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for the affected
source, as defined in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, is specified
in Sec. 63.1102.
(2) Definitions.
Andrussow process unit means a process unit that produces hydrogen
cyanide by reacting methane and ammonia in the presence of oxygen over
a platinum/rhodium catalyst. An Andrussow process unit begins at the
point at which the raw materials are stored and ends at the point at
which refined hydrogen cyanide is utilized as a raw material in a
downstream process or is shipped offsite. If raw hydrogen cyanide is
reacted with sodium hydroxide to form sodium cyanide, prior to the
refining process, the unit operation where sodium cyanide is formed is
considered to be part of the Andrussow process unit.
Blausaure Methane Anlage (BMA) process unit means a process unit
that produces hydrogen cyanide by reacting methane and ammonia over a
platinum catalyst. A BMA process unit begins at the point at which raw
materials are stored and ends at the point at which refined hydrogen
cyanide is used as a raw material in a downstream process or is shipped
offsite. If raw hydrogen cyanide is reacted with sodium hydroxide to
form sodium cyanide, prior to the refining process, the unit operation
where sodium cyanide is formed is considered to be part of the BMA
process unit.
Byproduct means a chemical that is produced coincidentally during
the production of another chemical.
Cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit or CCMPU means the
equipment assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct work to
process raw materials to manufacture, store, and transport a cyanide
chemicals product. A cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit may
be any one of the following: an Andrussow process unit, a BMA process
unit, a sodium cyanide process unit, or a Sohio hydrogen cyanide
process unit. For the purpose of this subpart, a cyanide chemicals
manufacturing process unit includes reactors and associated unit
operations; associated recovery devices; and any feed, intermediate and
product storage vessels, product transfer racks, and connected ducts
and piping. A cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit includes
pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling
connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors,
instrumentation systems, and control devices or systems.
Cyanide chemicals product means either hydrogen cyanide or sodium
cyanide.
Dry-end process vent means a process vent originating from the drum
filter or any other unit operation in the dry end of a sodium cyanide
manufacturing process unit. For the purposes of this subpart, the dry
end of the sodium cyanide process unit begins in the unit
[[Page 76452]]
operation where water is removed from the sodium cyanide, usually in
the drum filter, and ends when the sodium cyanide is used as a raw
material in a downstream process, or is shipped offsite.
Raw hydrogen cyanide means hydrogen cyanide that has not been
through the refining process. Raw hydrogen cyanide usually has a
hydrogen cyanide concentration less than 10 percent.
Refined hydrogen cyanide means hydrogen cyanide that has been
through the refining process. Refined hydrogen cyanide usually has a
hydrogen cyanide concentration greater than 99 percent.
Refining process means the collection of equipment in a cyanide
chemicals manufacturing processing unit used to concentrate raw
hydrogen cyanide from a concentration less than 10 percent to refined
hydrogen cyanide at a concentration greater than 99 percent.
Sodium cyanide process unit means a process unit that produces
sodium cyanide by reacting hydrogen cyanide and sodium hydroxide via
the neutralization, or wet, process. A sodium cyanide process unit
begins at the unit operation where refined hydrogen cyanide is reacted
with sodium hydroxide and ends at the point the solid sodium cyanide
product is shipped offsite or used as a raw material in a downstream
process. If raw hydrogen cyanide is reacted with sodium hydroxide to
form sodium cyanide prior to the refining process, the unit operation
where sodium cyanide is formed is not considered to be part of the
sodium cyanide process unit. For this type of process, the sodium
cyanide process unit begins at the point that the aqueous sodium
cyanide stream leaves the unit operation where the sodium cyanide is
formed.
Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit means a process unit that
produces hydrogen cyanide as a byproduct of the acrylonitrile
production process when acrylonitrile is manufactured using the Sohio
process. A Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit begins at the point the
hydrogen cyanide leaves the unit operation where the hydrogen cyanide
is separated from the acrylonitrile (usually referred to as the light
ends column). The Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit ends at the point
refined hydrogen cyanide is used as a raw material in a downstream
process or is shipped offsite. If raw hydrogen cyanide is reacted with
sodium hydroxide to form sodium cyanide, prior to the refining process,
the unit operation where sodium cyanide is formed is considered to be
part of the Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit.
Wet-end process vent means a process vent originating from the
reactor, crystallizer, or any other unit operation in the wet end of
the sodium cyanide process unit. For the purposes of this subpart, the
wet end of the sodium cyanide process unit begins at the point at which
the raw materials are stored and ends just prior to the unit operation
where water is removed from the sodium cyanide, usually in the drum
filter.
(3) Requirements. Table 9 of this section specifies the cyanide
chemicals manufacturing standards applicable to existing and new
sources. Applicability assessment procedures and methods are specified
in Sec. 63.1104. An owner or operator of an affected source is not
required to perform applicability tests, or other applicability
assessment procedures if they opt to comply with the most stringent
requirements for an applicable emission point pursuant to this subpart.
General compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are
specified in Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1112. Procedures for approval of
alternative means of emission limitations are specified in
Sec. 63.1113.
(4) Determination of overall HAP emissions reductions for a process
unit. (i) The owner or operator shall determine the overall HAP
emissions reductions for process vents in a process unit using Equation
1 of this section. The overall organic HAP emissions reductions shall
be determined for all process vents in the process unit.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE00.000
Where:
REDCCMPU = Overall HAP emission reduction for the group of
process vents in the CCMPU, percent.
Eunc,i = Uncontrolled HAP emissions from process vent i that
is controlled by using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device, kg/
hr.
n = Number of process vents in the process unit that are controlled by
using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device.
Ri = Control efficiency of the combustion, recovery, or
recapture device used to control HAP emissions from vent i, determined
in accordance with paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section.
Eunc,j = Uncontrolled HAP emissions from process vent j that
is not controlled by using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device,
kg/hr.
m = Number of process vents in the process unit that are not controlled
by using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device.
(ii) The control efficiency, Ri, shall be assigned as
specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) If the process vent is controlled using a flare in accordance
with the provisions of Sec. 63.987, or a combustion device in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 63.988(b)(2), for which a
performance test has not been conducted, the control efficiency shall
be assumed to be 98 percent.
(B) If the process vent is controlled using a combustion, recovery,
or recapture device for which a performance test has been conducted in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 63.997, the control efficiency
shall be the efficiency determined from the performance test.
[[Page 76453]]
Table 9 to Sec. 63.1103.--What Are My Requirements if I Own or Operate
a Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Existing or New Affected Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A storage vessel......... The storage a. Reduce emissions of
vessel hydrogen cyanide by
contains using a flare meeting
refined the requirements of Sec.
hydrogen 63.982(b); or
cyanide. b. Reduce emissions of
hydrogen cyanide by 98
weight-percent by
venting emissions
through a closed vent
system to any
combination of control
devices meeting the
requirements of Sec.
63.982(c)(1) or (d).
2. One or more process vents ............... During all periods,
from continuous unit except periods of
operations in an Andrussow startup, shutdown, and
or BMA process unit. malfunction, either:
a. Reduce overall
emissions of total HAP
from the collection of
process vents from
continuous unit
operations in the
process unit by 99
weight-percent in
accordance with
paragraph (g)(4) of this
section. Any control
device used to reduce
emissions from one or
more process vents from
continuous unit
operations in the
process unit must meet
the applicable
requirements of Sec.
63.982(a)(2); or
b. Reduce emissions of
total HAP from each
process vent from a
continuous unit
operation in the process
unit by 99 weight-
percent or a
concentration of 20
parts per million by
volume, by venting
emissions through a
closed vent system to
any combination of
control devices meeting
the requirements of Sec.
63.982(c)(2) or (d).
3. One or more process vents ............... During periods of
from continuous unit startup, shutdown, and
operations in an Andrussow malfunction, either:
or BMA process unit. a. Reduce emissions of
total HAP from each
process vent from a
continuous unit
operation in the process
unit by using a flare
meeting the requirements
of Sec. 63.982(b); or
b. Reduce emissions of
total HAP from each
process vent from a
continuous unit
operation in the process
unit by 98 weight-
percent or a
concentration of 20
parts per million by
volume, by venting
emissions through a
closed vent system to
any combination of
control devices meeting
the requirements of Sec.
63.982(c)(2) or (d).
4. One or more process vents ............... a. Reduce overall
from continuous unit emissions of hydrogen
operations in a Sohio cyanide from the
hydrogen cyanide process collection of process
unit. vents from continuous
unit operations in the
process unit by 98
weight-percent in
accordance with
paragraph (g)(4) of this
section. Any control
device used to reduce
emissions from one or
more process vents from
continuous unit
operations in the
process unit must meet
the applicable
requirements specified
in Sec. 63.982(a)(2);
or
b. Reduce emissions of
hydrogen cyanide from
each process vent from a
continuous unit
operation in the process
unit by using a flare
meeting the requirements
of Sec. 63.982(b); or
c. Reduce emissions of
hydrogen cyanide from
each process vent from a
continuous unit
operation in the process
unit by 98 weight-
percent or a
concentration of 20
parts per million by
volume, by venting
emissions through a
closed vent system to
any combination of
control devices meeting
the requirements of Sec.
63.982(c)(2) or (d).
[[Page 76454]]
5. One or more wet-end ............... a. Reduce overall
process vents, as defined emissions of total HAP
in paragraph (g)(2) of this from the collection of
section, in a sodium process vents from
cyanide process unit. continuous unit
operations in the
process unit by 98
weight-percent in
accordance with
paragraph (g)(4) of this
section. Any control
device used to reduce
emissions from one or
more process vents from
continuous unit
operations in the
process unit must meet
the applicable
requirements Sec.
63.982(a)(2); or
b. Reduce emissions of
total HAP from each wet-
end process vent in the
process unit by using a
flare meeting the
requirements of Sec.
63.982(b); or
c. Reduce emissions of
total HAP from each wet-
end process vent in the
process unit by 98
weight-percent or a
concentration of 20
parts per million by
volume, by venting
emissions through a
closed vent system to
any combination of
control devices meeting
the requirements of Sec.
63.982(c)(2) or (d).
6. One or more dry-end ............... a. Reduce overall
process vents, as defined emissions of sodium
in paragraph (g)(2) of this cyanide from the
section, in a sodium collection of process
cyanide process unit. vents from continuous
unit operations in the
process unit by 98
weight-percent in
accordance with
paragraph (g)(4) of this
section. Any control
device used to reduce
emissions from one or
more process vents from
continuous unit
operations in the
process unit must meet
the applicable
requirements of Sec.
63.982(a)(2); or
b. Reduce emissions of
sodium cyanide from each
dry-end process vent in
the process unit by 98
weight-percent by
venting emissions
through a closed vent
system to any
combination of control
devices meeting the
requirements of Sec.
63.982(c)(2) or (d).
7. A transfer rack.......... The transfer a. Reduce emissions of
rack is used hydrogen cyanide by
to load using a flare meeting
refined the requirements of Sec.
hydrogen 63.982(b); or
cyanide into b. Reduce emissions of
tank trucks hydrogen cyanide by 98
and/or rail weight-percent or a
cars. concentration of 20
parts per million by
volume, whichever is
less stringent, by
venting emissions
through a closed vent
system to any
combination of control
devices meeting the
requirements specified
in Sec. 63.982(c)(1),
(c)(2), or (d).
8. A new cyanide chemicals The process Achieve a combined
manufacturing process unit wastewater is removal and control of
that generates process from HCN HAP from the wastewater
wastewater. purification, of 93 weight-percent.
ammonia
purification,
or flare
blowdown.
9. A cyanide chemicals The maintenance Comply with the
manufacturing process unit wastewater requirements of Sec.
that generates maintenance contains 63.1106(b).
wastewater. hydrogen
cyanide or
acetonitrile.
10. An item of equipment The item of Comply with the
listed in Sec. equipment requirements in Table 35
63.1106(c)(1). meets the of subpart G of this
criteria part.
specified in
Sec. 63.1106(
c)(1) through
(3) and either
(c)(4)(i) or
(ii)..
11. Equipment, as defined The equipment Comply with either
under Sec. 63.1101. contains or subpart TT or UU of this
contacts part, with the exception
hydrogen that open-ended lines
cyanide and that contain or contact
operates equal hydrogen cyanide are not
to or greater to be capped.
than 300 hours
per year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h) Spandex production applicability, definitions, and
requirements--(1) Applicability--(i) Affected source. For the spandex
production (as defined in paragraph (h)(2) of this section) source
category, the affected source shall comprise all emission points listed
in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section that are
associated with a reaction spinning spandex production process unit
located at a major source, as defined in section 112(a) of the Act.
(A) All process vents (as defined in Sec. 63.1101).
(B) All storage vessels (as defined in Sec. 63.1101) that store
liquids containing organic HAP.
(C) All spandex fiber spinning lines using a spinning solution
having organic HAP.
(ii) Exceptions. The emission points listed in paragraphs
(h)(1)(ii)(A) and (B)
[[Page 76455]]
of this section are in the spandex production source category but are
not subject to the requirements of paragraph (h)(3) of this section.
(A) Equipment that is located within a spandex production process
unit that is subject to this subpart but does not contain organic HAP.
(B) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain organic HAP as
impurities.
(iii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for affected
sources, as defined in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section, is
specified in paragraph (b) of Sec. 63.1102.
(2) Definitions.
Spandex or Spandex fiber means a manufactured synthetic fiber in
which the fiber-forming substance is a long-chain polymer comprised of
at least 85 percent by mass of a segmented polyurethane.
Spandex production means the production of synthetic spandex
fibers.
Spandex production process unit means a process unit that is
specifically used for the production of synthetic spandex fibers.
Fiber spinning line means the group of equipment and process vents
associated with spandex fiber spinning operations. The fiber spinning
line includes the blending and dissolving tanks, spinning solution
filters, spinning units, spin bath tanks, and the equipment used
downstream of the spin bath to wash, draw, or dry on the wet belt the
spun fiber.
(3) Requirements. Table 10 to this section specifies the spandex
production source category requirements for new and existing sources.
An owner or operator must perform the applicability assessment
procedures and methods for process vents specified in Sec. 63.1104,
excluding paragraphs (b)(1), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), (l)(1), and (n).
General compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are
specified in Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1112. Minimization of emissions
from startup, shutdown, and malfunctions must be addressed in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by Sec. 63.1111; the
plan must also establish reporting and recordkeeping of such events.
Procedures for approval of alternate means of emission limitations are
specified in Sec. 63.1113.
Table 10 to Sec. 63.1103.--What Are My Requirements if I Own or Operate
a Spandex Production Process Unit at a New or Existing Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A storage vessel (as The maximum a. Comply with the
defined in Sec. 63.1101) true vapor requirements of subpart
that stores liquid pressure of WW of this part; or
containing organic HAP. the organic b. Reduce emissions of
HAP is 3.4 percent by venting
kilopascals; emissions through a
and. closed vent system to
The capacity of any combination of
the vessel is control devices meeting
47 the requirements of
cubic meters. subpart SS of this part,
as specified in Sec.
63.982(a)(1).
2. A process vent........... ............... Reduce emissions of
organic HAP by 95 weight-
percent; or reduce
organic HAP or TOC to a
concentration of 20
parts per million by
volume; whichever is
less stringent, by
venting emissions
through a closed vent
system to any
combination of control
devices meeting the
requirements of subpart
SS of this part, as
specified in Sec.
63.982(a)(2).
3. A fiber spinning line.... ............... Operate the fiber
spinning line such that
emissions are captured
and vented through a
closed vent system to a
control device that
complies with the
requirements of subpart
SS of this part, as
specified in Sec.
63.982(a)(2). If a
control device other
than a flare is used,
HAP emissions must be
reduced by 95 weight-
percent; or total
organic HAP or TOC must
be reduced to a
concentration of 20
parts per million by
volume, whichever is
less stringent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Section 63.1104 is amended by:
a. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (a);
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e);
c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (f)(1);
d. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (k) introductory text;
and
e. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (m)(2)(i) introductory
text.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1104 Process vents from continuous unit operations:
applicability assessment procedures and methods.
(a) * * * The owner or operator of a process vent is not required
to determine the criteria specified for a process vent that is being
controlled in accordance with the applicable weight-percent, TOC
concentration, or organic HAP concentration requirement in
Sec. 63.1103.
* * * * *
(e) TOC or organic HAP concentration. The TOC or organic HAP
concentrations, used for TRE index value calculations in paragraph (j)
of this section, shall be determined based on paragraph (e)(1) or (k)
of this section, or any other method or data that have been validated
according to the protocol in Method 301 of appendix A of 40 CFR part
63. * * *
(f) * * *
(1) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A, as appropriate. * * *
* * * * *
(k) * * * If a process vent flow rate or process vent organic HAP
or TOC concentration is being determined for
[[Page 76456]]
comparison with the applicable flow rate or concentration value
presented in the tables in Sec. 63.1103 to determine control
requirement applicability, engineering assessment may be used to
determine the flow rate or concentration for the representative
operating conditions expected to yield the highest flow rate or
concentration.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(2) Process change.
(i) Whenever a process vent becomes subject to control requirements
under this subpart as a result of a process change, the owner or
operator shall submit a report within 60 days after the performance
test or applicability assessment, whichever is sooner.* * *
* * * * *
15. Section 63.1105 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1105 Transfer racks.
(a) Design requirements. The owner or operator shall equip each
transfer rack with one of the control options listed in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) A closed vent system designed to collect HAP-containing vapors
displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the
collected vapors to a flare. The owner or operator must meet the
requirements of Sec. 63.982(a)(3).
(2) A closed vent system designed to collect HAP-containing vapors
displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the
collected vapors to a control device other than a flare. The owner or
operator must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.982(a)(3).
(3) Process piping designed to collect the HAP vapors displaced
from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the collected
vapors to a process where the HAP vapors shall predominantly meet one
of, or a combination of, the ends specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)
through (iv) of this section or to a fuel gas system. The owner or
operator must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.982(a)(3).
(i) Recycled and/or consumed in the same manner as a material that
fulfills the same function in that process;
(ii) Transformed by chemical reaction into materials that are not
HAP;
(iii) Incorporated into a product; and/or
(iv) Recovered.
(4) Process piping designed to collect the HAP vapors displaced
from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the collected
vapors to a vapor balance system. The vapor balance system must be
designed to route the collected HAP vapors to the storage vessel from
which the liquid being loaded originated, or to another storage vessel
connected to a common header, or to compress and route collected HAP
vapors to a process.
(b) Operating requirements. An owner or operator of a transfer rack
shall operate it in such a manner that emissions are routed through the
equipment specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Control device operation. Whenever HAP emissions are vented to
a control device used to comply with the provisions of this subpart,
such control device shall be operating.
(d) Tank trucks and railcars. The owner or operator shall load HAP-
containing materials only into tank trucks and railcars that meet the
requirement in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section, and shall
maintain the records specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
(1) Have a current certification in accordance with the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) pressure test requirements of 49 CFR
part 180 for tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for railcars; or
(2) Have been demonstrated to be vapor-tight within the preceding
12 months as determined by the procedures in paragraph (h) of this
section. Vapor-tight means that the pressure in a truck or railcar tank
will not drop more than 750 pascals (0.11 pound per square inch) within
5 minutes after it is pressurized to a minimum of 4,500 pascals (0.63
pound per square inch).
(e) Pressure relief device. The owner or operator of a transfer
rack subject to the provisions of this subpart shall ensure that no
pressure relief device in the loading equipment of each tank truck or
railcar shall begin to open to the atmosphere during loading. Pressure
relief devices needed for safety purposes are not subject to the
requirements of this paragraph.
(f) Compatible system. The owner or operator of a transfer rack
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall load HAP-containing
materials only to tank trucks or railcars equipped with a vapor
collection system that is compatible with the transfer rack's closed
vent system or process piping.
(g) Loading while systems connected. The owner or operator of a
transfer rack subject to this subpart shall load HAP-containing
material only to tank trucks or railcars whose collection systems are
connected to the transfer rack's closed vent system or process piping.
(h) Vapor tightness procedures. For the purposes of demonstrating
vapor tightness to determine compliance with paragraph (d)(2) of this
section, the procedures and equipment specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
and (2) shall be used.
(1) The pressure test procedures specified in Method 27 of appendix
A to 40 CFR part 60.
(2) A pressure measurement device that has a precision of
2.5 millimeters of mercury (0.10 inch) or better and that
is capable of measuring above the pressure at which the tank truck or
railcar is to be tested for vapor tightness.
(i) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator of a transfer rack shall
record that the verification of DOT tank certification or Method 27 of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 testing required in Sec. 63.84(c) has been
performed. Various methods for the record of verification can be used
such as: A check off on a log sheet, a list of DOT serial numbers or
Method 27 data, or a position description for gate security showing
that the security guard will not allow any trucks on-site that do not
have the appropriate documentation.
* * * * *
16. Subpart YY is proposed to be amended by adding Sec. 63.1114 to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.1114 Implementation and enforcement.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA, or a
delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State,
local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to
implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional
Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or
tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(5) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards
in Sec. 63.1103(a)(3), (b)(3) through (5), (c)(3), (d)(3), (e)(3),
(f)(3), (g)(3) and (4), and (h)(3) under Sec. 63.6(g). Follow the
requirements in Sec. 63.1113 to request permission to use an
alternative means of emission limitation. Where these standards
reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated
according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
[[Page 76457]]
(3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
[FR Doc. 00-29767 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P