95-7066. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From the Production of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) Resin, Styrene Acrylonitrile (SAN) Resin, Methyl Methacrylate Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (MABS) Resin, ...

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5175-9]
RIN 2060-AE37

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
From the Production of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) Resin,
Styrene Acrylonitrile (SAN) Resin, Methyl Methacrylate Acrylonitrile
Butadiene Styrene (MABS) Resin, Methyl Methacrylate Butadiene Styrene
(MBS) Resin, Polystyrene Resin, Poly (Ethylene Terephthalate) (PET)
Resin, and Nitrile Resin (Group IV Polymers and Resins)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 16091]]

SUMMARY: The proposed rule would reduce emissions of organic hazardous
air pollutants (HAP) from existing and new facilities that manufacture
one or more of the following Group IV polymers and resins:
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) resin, styrene acrylonitrile
(SAN) resin, methyl methacrylate acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (MABS)
resin, methyl methacrylate butadiene styrene (MBS) resin, polystyrene
resin, poly (ethylene terephthalate) (PET) resin, and nitrile resin.
The EPA is in the process of developing standards for a wide range of
types of polymer and resin production facilities. The polymers and
resins covered by this proposed rule are thermoplastics, and with two
exceptions, use styrene as the dominant feedstock. These thermoplastics
are basically intermediate products used to produce automotive plastic
parts, appliances and appliance parts, housewares, polyester fibers,
packing and containers, soft drink bottles, and toys. In the production
of thermoplastics, a variety of organic HAP are used as monomers or are
created as by-products. The organic HAP emitted by the facilities
covered by this proposed rule include styrene, acrylonitrile,
butadiene, ethylene glycol, methanol, acetaldehyde, and dioxane. Some
of these pollutants are considered to be mutagens and carcinogens, and
all can cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects following
exposure. The proposed rule is estimated to reduce organic HAP
emissions from existing facilities by 11,750 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr). The emission reductions achieved by these standards, when combined
with the emission reductions achieved by other similar standards, will
achieve the primary goal of the Clean Air Act (Act) as amended in 1990,
which is to ``enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as
to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of
its population''.
The proposed rule implements section 112(d) of the Act, which
requires the Administrator or Administrator's designee, hereafter
referred to as Administrator, to regulate emissions of HAP listed in
section 112(b) of the Act. The intent of this rule is to protect the
public by requiring the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of
organic HAP from new and existing major sources, taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any
non-air quality, health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
Under today's action, the EPA is also proposing to revise subpart
DDD of 40 CFR part 60 by removing all references to polystyrene and PET
facilities contained therein. This proposed action is being taken
because today's proposed rule would supersede the requirements
specified in subpart DDD of 40 CFR part 60 for polystyrene and PET
facilities.
Finally, under today's action, the EPA is proposing to add nitrile
resin production to the source category list under section 112(c) of
the Act and to the source category schedule under section 112(e) of the
Act with a promulgation date no later than November 15, 2000.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before May 30, 1995.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by April 19, 1995, a public hearing will be held on
April 28, 1995 beginning at 10 a.m. Persons interested in attending the
hearing should call Ms. Marguerite Thweatt at (919) 541-5607 to verify
that a hearing will be held.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact the EPA by April 19, 1995 by contacting Ms.
Marguerite Thweatt; Organic Chemicals Group, (MD-13), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5607.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air Docket Section (LE-131), Attention: Docket No. A-92-
45, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy also be sent to the
contact person listed below. The public hearing, if required, will be
held at the EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
The docket is located at the above address in room M-1500,
Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday; telephone number (202) 382-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed rule, contact Mr. Leslie Evans at (919) 541-5410, Organic
Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed regulatory text is not included
in this Federal Register document, but is available in Docket No. A-92-
45, on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), or from the EPA contact
person designated in this notice. The TTN, EPA's electronic bulletin
board, provides information and technology exchange in various areas of
air pollution control. The service is free, except for the cost of a
telephone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 bps modem. If
more information on the TTN is needed, call the HELP line at (919) 541-
5384.
In addition to the proposed regulatory text, the Basis and Purpose
Document, which contains the rationale for the various components of
the standard, is available in the docket (Docket No. A-92-45, Category
II-A), and on the TTN. This document is entitled Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions From Process Units in the Thermoplastics
Manufacturing Industry--Basis and Purpose Document for Proposed
Standards, March 1995, and has been assigned document number EPA-453/R-
95-004a.
Other materials related to this rulemaking, including technical
memoranda, are available for review in the docket. Some of these
memoranda have been compiled into a single document, the Supplementary
Information Document (SID), to allow interested parties more convenient
access to the information. The SID is available in the docket (Docket
No. A-92-45, Category II-A) and from the EPA Library by calling (919)
541-2777. The document is entitled Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
From Process Units in the Thermoplastics Manufacturing Industry--
Supplementary Information Document for Proposed Standards, March 1995,
and has been assigned document number EPA-453/R-95-003a.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. List of Affected Source Categories
II. Background
A. Summary of Considerations Made in Developing This Rule
B. Regulatory Background
III. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
IV. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Source Categories To Be Regulated
B. Relationship to Other Rules
C. Pollutants To Be Regulated
D. Affected Emission Points
E. Format of the Standards
F. Proposed Standards
G. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions and Monitoring
Requirements
H. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
V. Solicitation of Comments
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP
B. Primary Air Impacts
C. Non-Air Impacts [[Page 16092]]
D. Energy Impacts
E. Cost Impacts
F. Economic Impacts
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Miscellaneous

I. List of Affected Source Categories

Section 112 of the Act requires that the EPA evaluate and control
emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is achieved through promulgation
of emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f) of the Act and
work practice and equipment standards under section 112(h) of the Act
for categories of sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, the EPA
published an initial list of major and area source categories to be
regulated, as required under section 112(c) of the Act. Included on
that list were major sources emitting HAP from ABS, SAN, MABS, MBS,
polystyrene, and PET. Nitrile resin production is being added to the
source category list under section 112(c) of the Act because, based on
information obtained during the gathering of HAP emission data for this
proposed rule, the one facility identified as producing nitrile resins
was determined to be a major source. Further, the EPA decided to
include nitrile resin production under today's proposed rule because of
similarities in process operations, emission characteristics, and
control device applicability and costs with the various styrene-based
resin source categories. For the purpose of this notice, these seven
polymer and resin source categories are collectively referred to as the
Group IV polymers and resins or the Group IV thermoplastics.
The EPA identified a total of 66 facilities producing one or more
of the Group IV thermoplastics. Twenty facilities were identified that
produced thermoplastics using multiple processes and, thus, fall within
multiple subcategories. For example, six of the PET facilities use both
the continuous terephthalic acid (TPA) process and the continuous
dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) process.
All of the facilities considered in the analysis supporting today's
proposed rule are believed to be major sources according to the 1990
Amendments criterion of emitting or of having the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tons/yr) of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of combined HAP.
(A year, for the purposes of compliance with this rule, is any
consecutive twelve month period or 365 rolling days). The proposed rule
would apply to all major sources that produce any of the seven
thermoplastics identified in this notice. Area sources would not be
subject to this proposed rule.
In developing the background information to support the proposed
rule, the EPA chose to subcategorize four of the seven source
categories for purposes of analyzing the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) floors and developing regulatory alternatives. A
source category was subcategorized to account for major differences in
production methods, raw material usage, or both. Table 1 summarizes the
subcategories developed.

Table 1.--Subcategorization of Group IV Polymers and Resins^{a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Source category Subcategory facilities in
subcategory^{b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABS...................... Continuous mass.............. 5
Continuous emulsion.......... 2
Batch emulsion............... 4
Batch suspension............. 2
Batch latex.................. 1
SAN...................... Continuous................... 3
Batch........................ 2
ASA/AMSAN.................... 1
Polystyrene.............. Continuous................... 22
Batch........................ 11
EPS.......................... 7
PET...................... TPA, continuous.............. 12
TPA, batch................... 1
DMT, continuous.............. 10
DMT, batch................... 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a As discussed in the text, subcategorization was not needed for MABS,
MBS, and nitrile facilities. Thus, these source categories are not
shown in this table.
^{b Number of facilities include one or more process units of each
described subcategory. Some facilities use more than one type of
production method or raw material (process). Therefore, it is
incorrect to sum these numbers to calculate the total number of
facilities within a source category.
ASA=acrylonitrile styrene acrylate.
AMSAN=alpha methyl styrene acrylonitrile.
EPS=expandable polystyrene.
TPA=terephthalic acid.
DMT=dimethyl terephthalate.

No subcategorization was found to be justified for the three
facilities producing MBS. Only one facility was found to produce MABS
and only one to produce nitrile resins. Hereafter, for purposes of this
preamble and the proposed standards, the terms ``subcategory'' and
``subcategories'' include the production of MBS, MABS, and nitrile even
though these are source categories.
Upon inspection (see Section IV, Summary of Proposed Standards), it
may appear that subcategorization does not affect the outcome of the
proposed standards since the same level of control is required across
most of the subcategories for a given type of emission point (e.g.,
storage vessel, process vent, etc.). In fact, subcategorization does
affect the proposed level of control for individual types of emission
points. As the development of the proposed standards
[[Page 16093]] progressed beyond the technical analyses and the
structure of the regulation was examined, the EPA considered different
options that would create fewer subcategories for defining the source
categories.
In previous rules, the EPA considered by-products, co-products, and
intermediates to be products of a process. In the implementation of
these previous rules, there has been confusion over the meaning of the
terms ``product'' and ``to produce'' and the correct way to decide
whether a source ``produces'' a listed chemical and is subject to the
standard.
This confusion arises because of the complexity, diversity, and the
highly integrated nature of the subject industries.
Because of this confusion, applicability will be based on the
primary product that is produced by a thermoplastic product process
unit. By-products, co-products, and isolated intermediates would not be
considered in determining applicability. For the purposes of this rule,
the EPA does not consider wastes to be products. Also, impurities or
trace contaminants that are coincidentally processed and are not
isolated are not considered to be a product.
The primary product of the thermoplastic product process unit is
determined only once, and the determination would be based on the
product that represents the largest percentage of the total mass
produced by the thermoplastic product process unit.

II. Background

A. Summary of Considerations Made in Developing This Rule

The Act was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (section
101(b)(1) of the Act). As such, this regulation protects the public
health by reducing emissions of some of the HAP listed in section
112(b)(1) of the Act.
The HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) of the Act emitted by the
thermoplastic facilities covered by this proposed rule include styrene,
acrylonitrile, butadiene, ethylene glycol, methanol, acetaldehyde, and
dioxane. Some of these pollutants are considered to be mutagens and
carcinogens, and all can cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects
following exposure. The potential toxic effects include eye, nose,
throat, and skin irritation; liver and kidney toxicity, and
neurotoxicity. These effects can range from mild to severe. In extreme
circumstances, death can result from exposure. These adverse health
effects are associated with a wide range of ambient concentrations and
exposure times and are influenced by source-specific characteristics
such as emission rates and local meteorological conditions. Health
impacts are also dependent on multiple factors that affect human
variability such as genetics, age, health status (e.g., presence of
pre-existing disease) and lifestyle. Due to the volatility and
relatively low potential for bioaccumulation of these pollutants, air
emissions are not expected to deposit in land or water and cause
subsequent adverse human health or ecosystem effects.
The EPA does not have the type of current detailed data on each of
the thermoplastic facilities covered by this rule, and the people
living around the facilities, that would be necessary to conduct an
analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the organic
HAP emitted from these facilities and resulting health effects.
Therefore, the EPA does not know the extent to which the adverse health
effects described above occur in the populations surrounding these
facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the
promulgated standard will substantially reduce emissions and exposures
to the level achievable with maximum achievable control technology.
The alternatives considered in the development of this regulation,
including those alternatives selected as standards for new and existing
sources, are based on process and emissions data received from the
existing facilities known by the EPA to be in operation.
Regulatory alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor were
selected when they were judged to be reasonable ``taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any
non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements'' (Section 112(d)(2) of the Act). In most instances, the
proposed standards reflect regulatory alternatives that are judged to
be reasonable and are equivalent to or more stringent than the MACT
floor. In a few instances, the MACT floor was found to have a
relatively high cost. In these cases, the MACT floor was chosen because
a less costly, yet otherwise reasonable, regulatory alternative was not
available.
The proposed standards give existing facilities 3 years from the
date of promulgation to comply. This is the maximum amount allowed by
the Act. Based on the number of existing sources affected by this rule,
the EPA believes that required retrofits or other actions can be
achieved in the timeframe allotted. New facilities are required to
comply with the standard upon start-up. The EPA sees no reason why new
facilities would not be able to comply with the requirements of the
standards upon start-up.
Included in the proposed rule are methods for determining initial
compliance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that
affected sources will comply with the standards both initially and over
time. However, the EPA has made every effort to simplify the
requirements in the rule. This rule refers extensively to the HON (40
CFR part 63, subparts F, G, and H). In doing so, this rule has
benefited from the extensive public debate and participation
experienced in the HON rulemaking. The EPA has also attempted to
maintain consistency with existing regulations by either incorporating
text from existing regulations or referencing the applicable sections,
depending on which method would be least confusing for a given
situation.
Representatives from other interested EPA offices and programs,
including State and Regional environmental agency personnel,
participated in the regulatory development process as members of the
Work Group. The Work Group is involved in the regulatory development
process, and is given opportunities to review and comment on the
regulation before proposal and promulgation. Therefore, the EPA
believes that the implication to other EPA offices and programs has
been adequately considered during the development of these standards.
In addition, the EPA has met with some members of industry concerning
these standards. Finally, industry, regulatory authorities, and
environmental groups will have the opportunity to comment on the
proposed standards and provide additional information during the public
comment period following proposal.
These standards will result in an organic HAP emission reduction of
11,750 Mg/yr for existing facilities and 7,395 Mg/yr for new sources.
The emission reductions achieved by these standards, when combined with
the emission reductions achieved by other standards mandated by the
Act, will achieve the primary goal of the Clean Air Act, which is to
``enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote
the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its
population.'' [[Page 16094]]

B. Regulatory Background

In 1990 (55 FR 51010, December 11, 1990), the EPA promulgated new
source performance standards (NSPS) affecting four types of polymer
manufacturing facilities (subpart DDD of 40 CFR part 60). Two of these
four types--polystyrene and PET--are being affected by today's proposed
rule. In addition, polystyrene manufacturing facilities may be subject
to State regulations as the result of a control techniques guideline
(CTG) document (EPA-450/3-83-008, November 1983; Docket No. A-92-45,
Category II-A) addressing, in part, polystyrene manufacturing.
For polystyrene, subpart DDD applies to those facilities that use a
continuous process to manufacture general purpose or high impact
polystyrene. Facilities that produce general purpose or high impact
polystyrene using a batch process were not covered under subpart DDD
because information at that time indicated that no new facilities would
be constructed using batch processes to produce general purpose or high
impact polystyrene. Subpart DDD also applies to all facilities that
manufacture expandable polystyrene (EPS), regardless of the process
used.
For general purpose or high impact polystyrene facilities using a
continuous process and all facilities producing EPS, subpart DDD
requires control of continuous process volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from each material recovery section. The standard for
material recovery section process emissions is: (1) Limit the emissions
of total organic compounds (TOC) (minus methane and ethane) to 0.0036
kilograms (kg) of TOC per megagram (Mg) of product (0.0036 pounds (lbs)
TOC/1,000 lbs of product) from each material recovery section, (2)
limit the outlet gas temperature from each final condenser in each
material recovery section to -25 degrees Celcius (-25 deg. C) (-13 deg.
Fahrenheit (-13 deg. F)), or (3) reduce emissions from each material
recovery section by 98 weight percent or to 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv). Modified or reconstructed affected facilities with
uncontrolled emission rates at or below 0.05 kg TOC per Mg of product
were exempted from this part of subpart DDD.
Like subpart DDD, the CTG applies to material recovery section
continuous process emissions at polystyrene facilities using a
continuous process. The CTG's recommended emission limit is 0.12 kg
TOC/Mg of product.
Subpart DDD also requires control of VOC emissions from equipment
leaks from polystyrene facilities using a continuous process and from
all EPS facilities. With one exception, subpart DDD's standards for
equipment leaks are the same as those for synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry (SOCMI) facilities under subpart VV of 40 CFR
part 60. The one exception concerns polymer pumps that are designed
with a ``bleed port.'' Such pumps are exempted from the definition of a
``visible leak of fluid,'' but the exemption expires when the existing
pump is replaced or reconstructed.
As mentioned previously, subpart DDD also applies to PET facilities
that use either a DMT or TPA continuous process. Subpart DDD does not
apply to PET facilities that use a batch process because the EPA did
not expect any new PET facilities to be constructed using a batch
process. For PET facilities using a continuous process, subpart DDD
only requires control of selected process emissions. Standards were not
proposed or promulgated for equipment leak emissions at PET facilities
because available information at that time showed that equipment leak
components at facilities using the continuous TPA process were in heavy
liquid service and that continuous DMT facilities were already covered
by the SOCMI equipment leak standards (subpart VV of 40 CFR part 60).
Table 2 summarizes subpart DDD requirements for process emissions
for new, modified, or reconstructed PET facilities. For both DMT and
TPA continuous facilities, subpart DDD limits ethylene glycol emissions
from the polymerization reaction section by requiring compliance with
an emission rate limit (0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product) and an ethylene
glycol weight percent concentration limit (either 0.35 or 6.0 percent
depending on the type of process) for the cooling water in the cooling
tower. In addition, subpart DDD limits process emissions from the
material recovery section at continuous DMT facilities and from the raw
material preparation section at continuous TPA facilities.

Table 2.--Summary of NSPS Pet Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Number of end Type of vacuum
Process facility Viscosity finishers producer Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMT.............. Material Low............. ................ ................ 0.018 kg TOC/Mg of
Recovery. product OR limit
temperature to +37
deg.F from each
final condenser in
the material
recovery section.
High............ Single.......... ................ (same as above).
Multiple........ ................ (same as above).
DMT.............. Poly- merization Low............. ................ Not steam jets.. 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of
Reaction. product.
Steam jets...... 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of
product AND 0.35
percent ethylene
glycol by weight in
the effluent exiting
the vacuum system.
High............ Single.......... Not steam jets.. 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of
product.
Steam jets...... 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of
product AND 0.35
percent ethylene
glycol by weight in
the effluent exiting
the vacuum system.
Multiple........ Not steam jets.. 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of
product.
Steam jets...... 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of
product AND 6.0
percent ethylene
glycol by weight in
the cooling water in
the cooling tower.
TPA.............. Raw Materials Low............. ................ ................ 0.04 kg TOC/Mg of
Preparation. product.
High............ Single.......... ................ (same as above).
[[Page 16095]]

................ Multiple........ ................ (same as above).
TPA.............. Polymerization Low............. ................ Not steam jets.. 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of
Reaction. product.
Steam jets...... 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of
product AND 0.35
percent ethylene
glycol by weight in
the effluent exiting
the vacuum system.
High............ Single.......... Not steam jets.. 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of
product.
Steam jets...... 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of
product AND 0.35
percent ethylene
glycol by weight in
the effluent exiting
the vacuum system.
Multiple........ Not steam jets.. 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of
product.
Steam jets...... 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of
product AND 6.0
percent ethylene
glycol by weight in
the cooling water in
the cooling tower.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key:
DMT = dimethyl terephthalate.
TPA = terephthalic acid.

In a manner similar to polystyrene facilities, subpart DDD has
uncontrolled emission rate thresholds at or below which modified or
reconstructed PET facilities are exempt. Table 3 summarizes these
threshold emission rates.

Table 3.--Summary of Pet Threshold Emission Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncontrolled
emission rate,
Production process Process section kg TOC/Mg
product^{a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poly(ethylene Material Recovery......... 0.12^{b,c
terephthalate), dimethyl Polymerization Reaction... 1.80^{c,d,e
terephthalate process.
Poly(ethylene Raw Materials............. g
terephthalate), Preparation............... 1.80^{c,e,h
terephthalic acid process.
Polymerization Reaction... 3.92^{c,f,h
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a``Uncontrolled emission rate'' refers to the emission rate of a vent
stream that vents directly to the atmosphere and to the emission rate
of a vent stream to the atmosphere that would occur in the absence of
any add-on control devices but after any material recovery devices
that constitute part of the normal material recovery operations in a
process line where potential emissions are recovered for recycle or
resale.
^{bEmission rate applies to continuous emissions only.
^{cApplies to modified or reconstructed affected facilities only.
^{dIncludes emissions from the cooling water tower.
^{eApplies to a process line producing low viscosity poly(ethylene
terephthalate).
^{ffApplies to a process line producing high viscosity poly(ethylene
terephthalate).
^{gSee footnote h.
^{hApplies to the sum of emissions to the atmosphere from the
polymerization reaction section (including emissions from the cooling
water tower) and the raw materials preparation section (i.e., the
esterifiers).

In 1994 (59 FR 46350, September 8, 1994), the EPA promulgated
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
industrial process cooling towers (40 CFR part 63, subpart G). This
rule prohibits the use of chromium-based water treatment chemicals in
industrial process cooling towers. Owners and operators of existing
industrial process cooling towers must comply within 18 months of
September 8, 1994, while owners and operators of new industrial process
cooling towers must comply by September 8, 1994 or at initial start-up,
depending on when construction was commenced.

III. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

Section 112 of the Act gives the EPA the authority to establish
national standards to reduce air emissions from sources that emit one
or more HAP. Section 112(b) contains a list of HAP to be regulated by
NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the EPA to use this pollutant list to
develop and publish a list of source categories for which NESHAP will
be developed. The EPA must list all known source categories and
subcategories of ``major sources'' (defined below) that emit one or
more of the listed HAP. A major source is defined in section 112(a) as
any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a
contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit in the aggregate, considering controls, 10 tons/yr or
more of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP.
This list of source categories was published in the Federal Register on
July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and includes ABS, SAN, MABS, MBS,
polystyrene, and PET. Today's action proposes to add nitrile resin
production to this list.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both
new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out
in section [[Page 16096]] 112(d) of the Act. The statute requires the
standards to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of
HAP that is achievable for new or existing sources. This control level
is referred to as MACT. Consideration of control levels more stringent
than the MACT floor (described below) must reflect consideration of the
cost of achieving the emission reduction, any non-air quality, health,
and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
The MACT floor is the least stringent level allowed for MACT
standards. For new sources, the standards for a source category or
subcategory ``shall not be less stringent than the emission control
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as
determined by the Administrator'' (section 112(d)(3) of the Act).
Existing source standards shall be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the
existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more
sources or the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30
sources (section 112(d)(3) of the Act). These two minimum levels of
control define the MACT floor for new and existing sources.
Two interpretations have been evaluated by the EPA for representing
the MACT floor for existing sources. One interpretation is that the
MACT floor is represented by the worst performing source of the best 12
percent performing sources. The second interpretation is that the MACT
floor is represented by the ``average emission limitation achieved'' by
the best performing sources, where the ``average'' is based on a
measure of central tendency, such as the arithmetic mean, median, or
mode. This latter interpretation is referred to as the ``higher floor
interpretation.'' In a June 6, 1994 Federal Register notice (59 FR
29196), the EPA presented its interpretation of the statutory language
concerning the MACT floor for existing sources. Based on a review of
the statute, legislative history, and public comments, the EPA believes
that the ``higher floor interpretation'' is a better reading of the
statutory language. The determination of the MACT floor for existing
sources under today's rule followed the ``higher floor
interpretation.''

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Source Categories To Be Regulated

Today's proposed standards would regulate organic HAP process
emissions from facilities in one of the 18 thermoplastic subcategories
listed below, provided that a facility is determined to be a major
source. For this proposed rule, an affected source is defined as one of
the following:
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
continuous emulsion process to produce ABS.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
continuous mass process to produce ABS.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
batch emulsion process to produce ABS.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
batch suspension process to produce ABS.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
batch latex process to produce ABS.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility producing
MABS.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility producing
MBS.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
continuous process to produce SAN.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
batch process to produce SAN.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility producing
ASA/AMSAN.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
continuous process to produce polystyrene.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
batch process to produce polystyrene.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility producing
EPS.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
continuous TPA process to produce PET and any collocated solid state
processes.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
batch TPA process to produce PET and any collocated solid state
processes.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
continuous DMT process to produce PET and any collocated solid state
processes.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility using a
batch DMT process to produce PET and any collocated solid state
processes.
All organic HAP emission points at a facility producing
nitrile resins.
The proposed rule regulates emissions from solid state PET
processes if they are collocated with a TPA or DMT fed PET process, but
does not regulate emissions from independently located solid state PET
processes (i.e., those that purchase low molecular weight PET from an
off-site source). As part of the rulemaking, information was submitted
by the industry for collocated solid state PET processes, but none was
submitted for independently located solid state PET processes.

(Note: The data request did not distinguish solid state as a
separate process which might have precipitated companies not
submitting data concerning PET produced by this process.)

In addition, the EPA believes that independently located solid
state PET processes are likely to be non-major sources because there is
not a significant source of organic HAP emissions from the solid state
process. The emissions from a solid state process are typically the
result of release of residual monomer in the low molecular weight PET.
For these reasons, the EPA chose not to include independently located
solid state PET processes in today's proposed rule.

B. Relationship to Other Rules

Sources subject to the proposed rule are also subject to other
existing rules. In some cases, the proposed rule supersedes existing
rules and affected sources are no longer required to comply with the
existing rule. In other cases, there is no conflict between the
existing rule and the proposed rule, and in these cases, the affected
source must comply with both rules.
Sources subject to the proposed rule and subject to the NESHAP for
Certain Processes Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment
Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart I) are required to continue to comply
with subpart I until the compliance date of the proposed rule. After
the compliance date of the proposed rule, compliance with the proposed
rule will constitute compliance with subpart I.
Sources subject to the proposed rule may have storage vessels
subject to the NSPS for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (40 CFR
part 60, subpart Kb). After the compliance date for the proposed rule,
such storage vessels are only subject to the proposed rule and are no
longer required to comply with subpart Kb.
Some sources subject to the proposed rule that produce PET or
polystyrene are also subject to the NSPS for Polymers Manufacturing (40
CFR part 60, subpart DDD). After the compliance date for the proposed
rule, such sources are only subject to the proposed rule and are no
longer required to comply with subpart DDD. As part of this rulemaking,
the EPA is proposing to modify subpart DDD to exclude reference to the
manufacture of polystyrene and PET.
Sources subject to the proposed rule may have cooling towers
subject to the NESHAP for Industrial Cooling Towers [[Page 16097]] (40
CFR part 63, subpart Q). There is no conflict between the requirements
of subpart Q and the proposed rule. Therefore, sources subject to both
rules must comply with both rules.

C. Pollutants To Be Regulated

The subcategories covered by today's proposed rule emit a variety
of organic HAP. Among the most significant emissions of organic HAP are
the following: Styrene, acrylonitrile, and butadiene from styrene-based
resin production, which includes the production of ABS, SAN, MABS, MBS,
and polystyrene; acrylonitrile from nitrile resin production; and
ethylene glycol, methanol, acetaldehyde, and dioxane from PET
production. The proposed standards would regulate emissions of these
compounds, as well as a variety of other organic HAP that are emitted.

D. Affected Emission Points

Emissions from the following types of emission points (i.e.
emission source types) are being covered by today's proposed rule:
storage vessels, process vents, equipment leaks, wastewater operations,
heat exchange systems and process contact cooling towers.

E. Format of the Standards

As discussed in more detail in Section IV.F, Proposed Standards,
the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) (subparts F, G, H, and I of 40 CFR
part 63), the polymer manufacturing NSPS (subpart DDD of 40 CFR part
60), and the Batch Processes Alternative Control Techniques (ACT)
document (EPA 453/R-93-017, November 1993; Docket No. A-92-45, Category
II-A) provided a basis for selection of the proposed formats. In most
instances, the format of today's proposed standards is the same as
those found in the HON, Batch Processes ACT, and subpart DDD. The
following paragraphs summarize the selected formats, including those
that are different from the HON, Batch Processes ACT, and subpart DDD.
The formats and their selection are discussed in more detail in the
Basis and Purpose Document for this proposed regulation (Docket No. A-
92-45, Category II-A).
For storage vessels, the format of the proposed standards is
dependent on the method selected to comply with the standards. If tank
improvements (e.g., internal or external floating roofs with proper
seals and fittings) are selected, the format is a combination of
design, equipment, work practice, and operational standards. If a
closed vent system and control device are selected, the format is a
combination of design and equipment standards.
For process vents, the format of the proposed standards is also
dependent on the method selected to comply with the standards. If a
flare is selected, the format is a combination of equipment and
operating specifications. If a control device other than a flare is
used, the formats are a percent reduction and an outlet concentration.
For equipment leaks, the proposed standards incorporate several
formats: Equipment, design, base performance levels (e.g., maximum
allowable percent leaking valves), work practices, and operational
practices. Different formats are necessary for different types of
equipment because of the nature of the equipment, available control
techniques, and applicability of the measurement method.
For wastewater streams requiring control, the proposed standards
incorporate several formats: Equipment, operational, work practice, and
emission standards. The particular format selected depends on which
portion of the wastewater stream is involved. For transport and
handling equipment, the selected format is a combination of equipment
standards and work practices. For the reduction of organic HAP from the
wastewater stream itself, several alternative formats are included,
including five alternative numerical emission limit formats (overall
percent reduction for total volatile organic HAP (VOHAP), individual
organic HAP percent reduction, effluent concentration limit for total
VOHAP, individual VOHAP effluent concentration limits, and mass removal
for organic HAP) and equipment design and operation standard for a
steam stripper. For vapor recovery and destruction devices other than
flares, the format is a weight percent reduction. For flares, the
format is a combination of equipment and operating specifications.
Finally, a work practice standard is adopted for all cooling water/
process heat exchange systems at Group IV resin facilities. This
standard requires a leak detection and repair program to detect and
repair leaks of organic HAP into cooling tower water. In addition, the
proposed standards include a work practice standard that prohibits the
use of cooling tower water in contact condensers in vacuum systems
located at PET facilities.

F. Proposed Standards

With relatively few exceptions, the standards being proposed under
today's action for storage vessels, continuous process vents, equipment
leaks, wastewater operations, and heat exchange systems are the same as
those promulgated for the corresponding types of emission points at
facilities subject to the HON (subparts F, G, H, and I). The proposed
standards also require emissions from certain batch process vents to be
reduced by at least 90 percent or to be controlled in a flare that
meets the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b) of subpart A of 40 CFR part 63.
(The criteria used to determine which batch process vents require
control was based on the approach described in the Batch Processes
ACT.) The standards being proposed today for certain continuous process
vents from polystyrene facilities and from PET facilities using a
continuous process require the same levels of control as were
promulgated for these facilities under subpart DDD of 40 CFR part 60.
Finally, for PET facilities, the proposed standards would prohibit the
use of cooling tower water in contact condensers in the vacuum systems
and would require that all vacuum system wastewater containing any of
the organic HAP identified in Table 9 of the HON wastewater provisions
be controlled to the same level of control as required under the HON,
regardless of the wastewater stream's organic HAP content or flowrate.
Under the proposed standards, emissions from existing or new batch
process vents, heat exchange systems not including process contact
cooling towers, and equipment leaks are required to be controlled to
the levels specified in the proposed standards. Emissions from existing
storage vessels, continuous process vents, process wastewater streams,
and process contact cooling towers are required to be controlled to the
levels specified in the proposed standards or alternatively, the
emissions averaging compliance approach specified in the rule may be
used. Emissions from new storage vessels, continuous process vents,
process wastewater streams, and process contact cooling towers are
required to be controlled to the levels specified in the proposed
standards. The emissions averaging compliance approach may not be used
for new sources.
Tables 4 and 5 summarize the level of control being proposed under
today's proposed standards. For those types of emission points where
the level of control is the same as the HON, this is indicated in the
table by the acronym ``HON.'' Similarly, where the proposed level of
control is the same as promulgated under subpart DDD of 40 CFR part 60,
this is indicated by the use of the words ``same as under subpart
DDD.'' Finally, where the proposed [[Page 16098]] level of control is
more stringent than the level of control in the HON or in subpart DDD
for that type of emission point, the words ``MACT floor'' are used.

Table 4.--Summary of Proposed Standards for Existing Sources in Relationship to Subparts G and H of 40 CFR Part
63 and Subpart DDD of 40 CFR Part 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of emission point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Heat exchange
Storage vessels Process vents Equipment leaks Wastewater systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABS, continuous HON............. HON.................. HON............. HON............. HON for heat
emulsion. exchange
systems.
ABS, continuous HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
mass. Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
compliant flare.
ABS, batch HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
emulsion. Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
compliant flare.
ABS, batch HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
suspension. Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
compliant flare.
ABS, latex....... HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
compliant flare.
MABS............. HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
compliant flare.
MBS.............. HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
Vents: MACT Floor exchange
Batch Process Vents: systems.
90 percent reduction
or compliant flare.
SAN, continuous.. HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
compliant flare.
SAN, batch....... HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
compliant flare.
ASA/AMSAN........ MACT Floor...... MACT Floor........... HON............. No control...... HON for heat
exchange
systems.
Polystyrene, MACT Floor...... Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
continuous. Vents from material exchange
recovery: same as systems.
subpart DDD Other
Continuous Process
vents: HON Batch
Process Vents: 90
percent reduction or
compliant flare.
Polystyrene, HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
batch. Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
compliant flare.
Expandable HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
polystyrene. Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
compliant flare.
PET-TPA, HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON for No cooling tower
continuous. Vents from raw wastewater water allowed
material preparation (including all in vacuum
and polymerization vacuum system system contact
reaction sections: generated condensers. HON
same as subpart DDD wastewater).^{a. for heat
Other Continuous exchange
Process vents: HON systems.
Batch Process Vents:
90 percent reduction
or compliant flare.
PET-TPA, batch - HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON for No cooling tower
DMT, batch. Vents: HON Batch wastewater water allowed
Process Vents: 90 (including all in vacuum
percent reduction or vacuum system system contact
compliant flare. generated condensers. HON
wastewater).. for heat
exchange
systems.
PET-DMT, HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON for No cooling tower
continuous. Vents from material wastewater water allowed
recovery and (including all in vacuum
polymerization vacuum system system contact
reaction sections: generated condensers. HON
same as subpart DDD wastewater).^{a. for heat
Other Continuous exchange
Process vents: HON systems.
Batch Process Vents:
90 percent reduction
or compliant flare.
[[Page 16099]]

Nitrile.......... MACT Floor...... Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
compliant flare.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Vacuum system wastewater streams containing any organic HAP identified in Table 9 of the HON wastewater
provisions (subpart G) shall be considered Group 1 and are required to be controlled.

Table 5.--Summary of Proposed Standards for New Sources in Relationship to Subparts G & H of 40 CFR Part 63 and
Subpart DDD of 40 CFR Part 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of emission point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Heat exchange
Storage vessels Process vents Equipment leaks Wastewater systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABS, continuous HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
emulsion. Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
a compliant flare.
ABS, continuous Regulatory Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
mass. Alternative 2^{a. Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
a compliant flare.
ABS. batch HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
emulsion. Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
a compliant flare.
ABS. batch HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
suspension. Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
a compliant flare.
ABS, latex....... HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
a compliant flare.
MABS............. HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
a compliant flare.
MBS.............. HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
a compliant flare.
SAN, continuous.. MACT Floor...... Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
a compliant flare.
SAN, batch....... HON............. MACT Floor........... HON............. HON............. HON for heat
exchange
systems.
ASA/AMSAN........ MACT Floor...... MACT Floor........... HON............. No control...... HON for heat
exchange
systems.
Polystyrene, MACT Floor...... Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
continuous. Vents from material exchange
recovery: Same as systems.
subpart DDD Other
Continuous Process
Vents: HON Batch
Process Vents: 90
percent reduction or
a compliant flare.
Polystyrene, HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
batch. Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
a compliant flare.
Expandable HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
polystyrene. Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
a compliant flare.
PET--TPA, HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON for No cooling tower
continuous. Vents from raw wastewater water allowed
material preparation (including all in vacuum
and polymerization vacuum system system contact
reaction sections: generated condensers. HON
same as subpart DDD wastewater).^{b. for heat
Other Continuous exchange
Process Vents: HON systems.
Batch Process Vents:
90 percent reduction
or a compliant flare.
[[Page 16100]]

PET--TPA, batch-- HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON for No cooling tower
DMT, batch. Vents: HON Batch wastewater water allowed
Process Vents: 90 (including all in vacuum
percent reduction or vacuum system system contact
a compliant flare. generated condensers. HON
wastewater).^{b. for heat
exchange
systems.
PET--DMT, HON............. Continuous Process HON............. HON for No cooling tower
continuous. Vents from material wastewater water allowed
recovery and (including all in vacuum
polymerization vacuum system system contact
reaction sections: generated condensers. HON
same as subpart DDD wastewater).^{b. for heat
Other Continuous exchange
Process Vents: HON systems.
Batch Process Vents:
90 percent reduction
or a compliant flare.
Nitrile.......... MACT Floor...... Continuous Process HON............. HON............. HON for heat
Vents: HON Batch exchange
Process Vents: 90 systems.
percent reduction or
a compliant flare.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{aThe proposed standard is more stringent than the MACT floor, which is more stringent than the HON.
^{bVacuum system wastewater streams containing any organic HAP identified in Table 9 of the HON wastewater
provisions (subpart G) shall be considered Group 1 and are required to be controlled.

1. Storage vessels
Tables 6 and 7 summarize the proposed standards for existing and
new storage vessels, respectively. The proposed standards would require
owners and operators to first determine whether or not a storage vessel
was required to be controlled. This is done through the application of
certain criteria to each storage vessel. For those storage vessels
determined to require control, the proposed rule then specifies the
level of control required.

Table 6.--Proposed Standards for Existing Storage Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Applicability criteria^{a Level of Control^{b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All ABS SAN, continuous Vapor pressure 0.75 psia and <11.1 psia:="" polystyrene,="" batch="" all="" capacity="">40,000 gallons^{c. internal floating
noted below). Vapor pressure 1.9 psia and 2. external floating
capacity 20,000 gallons^{c. 3. an external
floating roof
converted to an
internal floating
roof; or
4. a closed vent
system and control
device.
If vapor pressure 11.1 psia: a
closed vent system
and control device^{d
ASA/AMSAN.............. AMST for capacities 10,200 gallons.
Styrene/acrylonitrile 98 percent reduction.
for capacities 1,000 gallons.
Acrylonitrile for 98 percent reduction.
capacities 20,000 gallons.
Any other chemical:.... If vapor pressure is
Vapor pressure <11.1 psia:="" thn-eq="">0.75 psia and 1. fixed roof and
capacity 40,000 gallonsc. roof; or
Vapor pressure 1.9 psia and roof; or
capacity 20,000 gallons^{c. floating roof
converted to an
internal floating
roof; or
4. a closed vent
system and control
device.
If vapor pressure 11.1 psia: a
closed vent system
and control device^{0d
Nitrile................ Control all (same as the HON level
acrylonitrile storage of control).
vessels 3,500 gallons.
Polystyrene, continuous Vapor pressure 0.28 (same as the HON level
psia and capacity 20,000 gallons.
Vapor pressure 2.08 psia and
capacity 10,000 but less
than 20,000 gallons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{aStorage vessels that meet the criteria are defined as Group 1 storage
vessels and control of their emissions would be required. Storage
vessels that do not meet the criteria are defined as Group 2 storage
vessels and control of their emissions is not required.
^{bRequired for Group 1 storage vessels only.
^{cThe applicability criteria for these subcategories are the same as in
the HON.
^{dThe level of control is the same as the HON.
KEY: AMST = alpha methyl styrene.

[[Page 16101]]
Table 7.--Proposed Standards for New Storage Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Applicability criteria^{a Level of control^{b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All ABS (except CM) Vapor pressure 0.1 psia and <11.1 psia:="" polystyrene,="" batch="" all="" capacity="">40,000 gallons^{c. internal floating
noted below). Vapor pressure 1.9 psia and 2. external floating
capacity 10,000 gallons^{c. 3. an external
floating roof
converted to an
internal floating
roof; or
4. a closed vent
system and control
device.
If vapor pressure 11.1 psia: a
closed vent system
and control device^{d.
ABS, CM................ VP 1.9 psia (same as the HON level
and capacity 10,000 gallons and
<12,000 gallons.="" styrene="" for="" capacities="">12,000
gallons.
VP 0.0782
psia and 12,000 gallons.
SAN, continuous........ VP 0.0735 90 percent reduction.
to <0.1 psia="" and="" capacity="">600,000 gallons.
VP 0.1 to (same as the HON level
<1.45 psia="" and="">40,000 gallons.
VP 1.45 to 98 percent reduction.
<14.7 psia="" and="" capacity="">8,000 to <40,000 gallons.="" asa/ams................="" amst="" for="" capacities="">10,200 gallons.
Styrene/acrylonitrile 98 percent reduction.
for capacities 1,000 gallons.
Acrylonitrile for 98 percent reduction.
capacities 20,000 gallons.
Any other chemical:.... (same as the HON level
Vapor pressure 0.1 psia and
capacity 40,000 gallons^{c.
Vapor pressure 1.9 psia and
capacity 10,000 gallons^{c.
Nitrile................ Control all (same as the HON level
acrylonitrile storage of control).
vessels
3,500 gallons.
Polystyrene, continuous Vapor pressure 0.78 psia and of control).
capacity
29,000 gallons.
Vapor pressure 0.09 psia and
capacity
12,000 gallons but
less than 29,000
gallons.
Vapor pressure 1.1 psia and
capacity
5,170 gallons but less
than 12,000 gallons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{aStorage vessels that meet the criteria are defined as Group 1 storage
vessels and control of their emissions would be required. Storage
vessels that do not meet the criteria are defined as Group 2 storage
vessels and control of their emissions is not required.
^{bRequired for Group 1 storage vessels only.
^{cThe applicability criteria for these subcategories are the same as
those in the HON.
^{d The level of control is the same as in the HON.
KEY: CM = continuous mass; VP = vapor pressure.

a. Applicability criteria. For most existing and new storage
vessels, the proposed criteria for determining which storage vessels
are to be controlled are identical to the criteria from the HON storage
vessel provisions and are based on storage vessel capacity and vapor
pressure of the stored material. Typically, the vapor pressures and
storage vessel capacity criteria that determine Group 1 or Group 2
status are different for existing and new sources. As in the HON, if a
storage vessel meets the applicability criteria and is required to be
controlled under today's proposed rule, it is referred to as a Group 1
storage vessel. If a storage vessel is not required to apply controls,
it is referred to as a Group 2 storage vessel.
For new ABS, continuous mass facilities, the applicability criteria
also rely on vapor pressure and storage vessel capacity, but use
different levels of each for defining a Group 1 storage vessel (see
Table 7).
For new continuous SAN facilities, the proposed standards for
storage vessels rely on five different combinations of vapor pressure
and storage vessel capacity to determine Group 1 storage vessels. These
combinations of vapor pressure and storage vessel capacity are shown in
Table 7.
For existing continuous polystyrene facilities, the proposed
standards for storage vessels rely on two combinations of vapor
pressure and storage vessel capacity to determine Group 1 storage
vessels. These combinations of vapor pressure and storage vessel
capacity are shown in Table 6.
For new continuous polystyrene facilities, the proposed standards
for storage vessels rely on three combinations of vapor pressure and
storage vessel capacity to determine Group 1 storage vessels. These
combinations of vapor pressure and storage vessel capacity are shown in
Table 7.
For existing and new ASA/AMSAN facilities, the proposed standards
for storage vessels have two parts to the applicability criteria. The
first part identifies specific chemical and storage vessel capacity
combinations. The second part applies vapor pressure and storage vessel
capacity applicability criteria for storage vessels containing
chemicals not specifically identified.
For existing and new nitrile facilities, all acrylonitrile storage
vessels with capacities greater than or equal to 3,500 gallons are
required to be controlled. For all other chemicals, the applicability
criteria are the same as in the HON.
b. Level of control. Except for the subcategories discussed below,
the level of control required for storage vessels determined to be
Group 1 storage vessels under the appropriate applicability criteria
being proposed in today's rule is either technical modification to the
tank (e.g., the installation of an internal floating roof)
[[Page 16102]] or the use of a closed vent system and control device
that is generally required to achieve at least 95 percent emission
reduction. (This is the same level of control as required under the
HON.) For all subcategories, storage vessels determined to be Group 2
are not required to be controlled.
For new continuous SAN facilities, different levels of control for
two of the five applicability criteria combinations are being proposed.
For the applicability combination of vapor pressure greater than 0.0735
but less than 0.1 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) and storage
vessel capacity greater than or equal to 600,000 gallons, the proposed
standard would require an emission reduction of 90 percent or more. For
the applicability combination of vapor pressure greater than or equal
to 1.45 but less than 14.7 psia and storage vessel capacity greater
than or equal to 8,000 gallons but less than 40,000 gallons, the
proposed standard would require an emission reduction of 98 percent or
more.
For ASA/AMSAN facilities, different levels of control for storage
vessels determined to be Group 1 based on the specific chemical/storage
vessel capacity combination criteria are being proposed. For these
storage vessels, the level of control being proposed is 98 percent.
2. Process Vents
As for storage vessels, the proposed standards for process vents
require owners and operators to first determine whether or not a
process vent (or set of process vents) requires control and, if so,
then specifies the level of control required.
a. Applicability criteria. Tables 8 and 9 summarize the proposed
applicability criteria for continuous and batch process vents at
existing and new facilities, respectively. As for storage vessels,
process vents that meet the applicability criteria are referred to as
Group 1 process vents and those that do not are referred to as Group 2
process vents. With the exceptions discussed below, the proposed rule
would require control of only those process vents determined to be
Group 1 process vents under the appropriate criteria.

Table 8.--Summary of Proposed Process Vent Applicability Criteria for Existing Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process vents Subcategory Applicability criteria
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuous Unit Operations............ All (except as specified below)......................... TRE^{a 1.
MBS..................................................... TRE^{a 3.7.
ASA/AMSAN............................................... None. All vents are required to be controlled.
Polystyrene, continuous: material recovery.............. None. Must meet standard.
PET/DMT, continuous: material recovery.................. 0.12 kg TOC per Mg product^{b.
PET/DMT, continuous: polymerization reaction............ None. Must meet standard.
PET/TPA, continuous: raw material preparation and None. Must meet standard.
polymerization reaction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Batch Unit Operations................. All..................................................... Stream volatility Flowrate regression
equation^{c
-------------------------------------------------------
Low....................... (0.00437) AE--51.6^{d.
Moderate.................. (0.00187) AE--14.0^{d.
High...................... (0.00081) AE--8.5^{d.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{aThe total resource effectiveness (TRE) value is a reflection of the cost effectiveness of controlling an individual process vent. There are different
TRE coefficients for existing and new process vents.
^{bIf emissions from the described process vents are greater than the applicability criteria, control is required.
^{cIf actual stream flowrate (standard cubic meters per minute) is less than the flowrate calculated by the regression equation, the process vent is
required to be controlled.
^{dAE = annual emissions in kilograms per year.

Table 9.--Summary of Proposed Process Vent Applicability Criteria for New Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process vents Subcategory Applicability criteria
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuous Unit Operations............ All (except as specified below)......................... TRE^{a 1
SAN, batch.............................................. None. Must meet standard.
ASA/AMSAN............................................... None. All vents are required to be controlled.
Polystyrene, continuous: material recovery.............. None. Must meet standard.
PET/DMT, continuous: material recovery and None. Must meet standard.
polymerization reaction.
PET/TPA, continuous: Raw material preparation and None. Must meet standard.
polymerization reaction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Batch Unit Operations................. All (except as specified below)......................... Stream volatility Flowrate regression
equation^{b
-------------------------------------------------------
Low....................... (0.00437) AE--51.6^{c.
Moderate.................. (0.00187) AE--14.0^{c.
High...................... (0.00081) AE--8.5^{c.
SAN, batch.............................................. None...................... Must meet standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{aThe total resource effectiveness (TRE) value is a reflection of the cost effectiveness of controlling an individual process vent. There are different
TRE coefficients for existing and new process vents.
^{bIf actual stream flowrate (standard cubic meters per minute) is less than the flowrate calculated by the regression equation, the process vent is
required to be controlled.
^{cAE=annual emissions in kilograms per year.

[[Page 16103]]

Except for certain PET and polystyrene continuous process vents,
Group 1 continuous process vents are determined by comparing each
process vent's total resource effectiveness (TRE) value to a TRE value
of unity. The TRE is a reflection of the costs and other associated
impacts of controlling an individual process vent. It is determined
based on process vent stream characteristics such as emissions (mass
per hour), heat content, and flowrate. The procedure in the proposed
rule for determining Group 1 process vents is the same procedure as in
the HON.
Except for continuous process vents at existing MBS facilities,
continuous process vents with a TRE value of 1 or less would be
classified as a Group 1 process vent. For continuous process vents at
existing MBS facilities, a TRE value of 3.7 or less defines a Group 1
process vent.
As seen in Tables 8 and 9, there are no applicability criteria
specified for several subcategories. At these facilities, a Group 1/
Group 2 determination does not need to be made and all process vents
are required to be controlled.
For process vents associated with the material recovery section
from existing PET facilities using a continuous DMT process, Group 1
process vents are determined by comparing uncontrolled emission rates
with threshold emission rates. Process vents associated with the
material recovery section at an existing PET facility using a
continuous DMT process would be considered Group 1 process vents if the
uncontrolled emission rate is greater than 0.12 kg TOC per Mg of
product (see Table 8). For other process vents at existing and new
polystyrene and PET facilities (see Tables 8 and 9), there are no
applicability criteria. These process vents must meet the proposed
standards.
For process vents from batch unit operations, the process vent is
first characterized as to its volatility--low, medium, or high. Next,
the estimate of the stream's annual emissions is entered in the
appropriate flowrate regression equation. If the actual flowrate is
less than the calculated flowrate, then the batch process vent is a
Group 1 vent under these standards, and control is required. As seen in
Tables 8 and 9, the batch process vent applicability criteria are the
same for existing and new sources, except for new SAN batch facilities.
For new SAN batch facilities, there are no applicability criteria
for individual process vent streams; all process vents are subject to
control in that the proposed standard for these facilities requires an
overall emission reduction of 84 percent from all process vents.
A batch process vent that is combined with a continuous process
vent prior to a control or recovery device is not required to comply
with the batch process vent provisions if there are no emissions to the
atmosphere up until the point the batch vent stream is combined with
the continuous vent stream. The combined vent would be required to
comply with the continuous process vent provisions. The presence of a
batch process vent in a continuous process vent stream would
necessitate that all applicability tests and performance tests be
conducted while the batch process vent is emitting (i.e. at maximum
operating conditions).
b. Level of control. For continuous process vents, most of the
facilities are required to control Group 1 process vents by at least 98
percent. If a flare is used, it must meet the design and operating
requirements of Sec. 63.11(b) of subpart A of 40 CFR part 63.
Exceptions to this are described in the paragraphs below.
For continuous process emissions from the material recovery section
of polystyrene plants using a continuous process, the proposed
standards would (1) limit the emissions of TOC (minus methane and
ethane) to 0.0036 kg TOC/Mg per megagram (Mg) of product (0.0036 pounds
(lbs) TOC/1,000 lbs of product) from each material recovery section, or
(2) limit the outlet gas temperature from each final condenser in each
material recovery section to -25 deg.C (-13 deg.F), or (3) reduce
emissions from each material recovery section by 98 weight percent or
to 20 ppmv. These are the same requirements as in subpart DDD.
For PET facilities using a continuous TPA process, the proposed
standards would limit continuous process vent emissions from (1) the
raw material preparation section to 0.04 kg TOC/Mg of product and (2)
the polymerization reaction section to 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product.
Similarly, for PET facilities using a continuous DMT process, the
proposed standards would limit (1) continuous process vent emissions
from the material recovery section to 0.018 kg TOC/Mg of product or the
temperature to 37 deg.F from each final condenser in the material
recovery section and (2) continuous process vent emissions from the
polymerization reaction section to 0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product. These are
also the same requirements that are in subpart DDD, with the exception
that cooling tower emissions would not be considered as part of the
polymerization reaction section.
For Group 1 continuous process emissions from other process
sections at polystyrene and PET facilities, the proposed standards
would require emission reduction by at least 98 percent or control by a
flare that meets the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b) of subpart A of 40
CFR part 63.
For batch process vents, the proposed standards would require Group
1 process vents from batch unit operations to be controlled by at least
90 percent.
There are three subcategories where the proposed standards are
based on the MACT floor. These subcategories are existing MBS
facilities, existing and new ASA/AMSAN facilities, and new SAN, batch
facilities.
For existing MBS facilities, the proposed standards require
continuous process vents at facilities to either (1) meet an emission
level of 0.000590 kg of emissions per megagram of product for all
continuous process vents or (2) control all continuous process vents
with a total resource effectiveness (TRE) of 3.7 or less by at least 98
percent. The TRE is to be calculated for each process vent using the
same TRE coefficients as for other existing sources. The development of
the MACT floor and applicability criteria for MBS existing sources is
documented in Docket No. A-92-45, Category II-B and in the SID.
For both existing and new ASA/AMSAN facilities, the proposed rule
requires all process vents (continuous and batch) at both existing and
new facilities to control emissions by at least 98 percent.
For new SAN, batch facilities, the proposed rule requires an
overall emission reduction of 84 percent of process vent emissions.
3. Equipment Leaks
For all the subcategories, both existing and new facilities would
be required to implement a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program.
With a few exceptions, the LDAR program being proposed is the same as
that specified in the National Emission Standards for Organic HAP for
Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart H) and the National Emission
Standards for Organic HAP for Certain Processes Subject to the
Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart I).
Under the proposed standards, work practice requirements to reduce
emissions from equipment that are in volatile HAP service for 300 or
more hours per year (hr/yr) are specified. The proposed standards
define ``in volatile HAP service'' as being in contact with or
containing process fluid that contains a total of 5 percent or more
total HAP. Equipment [[Page 16104]] subject to the proposed standards
are: Valves, pumps, compressors, connectors, pressure relief devices,
open-ended valves or lines, sampling connection systems,
instrumentation systems, agitators, surge control vessels, bottoms
receivers, and closed-vent systems and control devices.
Affected sources currently complying with the NESHAP for Certain
Processes Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks (40
CFR part 63, subpart I) are required to continue to comply with subpart
I until the compliance date of today's proposed rule. Further, affected
sources complying with subpart I through a quality improvement program
shall be allowed to continue these programs without interruption as
part of complying with today's proposed rule. In other words, becoming
subject to today's proposed rule does not restart or reset the
``compliance clock'' as it relates to reduced burden earned through a
quality improvement program.
4. Wastewater
Except for ASA/AMSAN facilities, the proposed standards require
owners and operators to determine for each wastewater stream at its
point of generation whether it is a Group 1 or Group 2 wastewater
stream. As for process vents, Group 1 wastewater streams are required
to be controlled, while Group 2 wastewater streams are not required to
be controlled. The wastewater stream characteristics used to make the
Group 1/Group 2 applicability determination are flowrate and organic
HAP concentration. The proposed criteria for determining Group 1
wastewater streams are presented in Table 10 and are the same criteria
used in the HON. The level of control required for Group 1 wastewater
streams is dependent upon the organic HAP constituents in the
wastewater stream. The levels of control proposed for these standards
are the same as those for the HON. The proposed rule would not control
wastewater emissions from any existing or new ASA/AMSAN facilities.

Table 10.--Proposed Wastewater Applicability Criteria^{ab
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing source criteria New source criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOHAP^{c concentration Same as existing criteria
10,000 ppmw. and
or for a subset of organic
VOHAP^{c concentration HAP...VOHAP^{c concentration 10 ppmw and flowrate 10 liters per minute. eq>0.02 liters per minute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Wastewater streams meeting these criteria are considered Group 1
wastewater streams and control is required.
^{b There are exemptions for minimal flowrates and concentrations.
^{c VOHAP=volatile organic HAP.

The proposed standards require owners and operators to comply with
the maintenance wastewater requirements in Sec. 63.105 of subpart F of
this part. These provisions require owners and operators to include a
description of procedures for managing wastewaters generated during
maintenance in their start-up, shutdown and malfunction plan. The
start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required under subpart A of
40 CFR part 63.
5. Heat Exchange Systems and Process Contact Cooling Towers
Today's proposed standards would require a monitoring program to
detect leakage of organic HAP from the process into the cooling water.
The proposed monitoring program is the same as that in the HON (subpart
F of this part). The proposed rule would also prohibit the use of
cooling tower water in contact condensers in the vacuum systems at PET
facilities. Further, if a wastewater stream is generated from the
vacuum system and it contains any of the organic HAP identified in
Table 9 of the HON wastewater provisions (subpart G), the proposed rule
would require it to be controlled regardless of its organic HAP
concentration or flowrate. The level of control required is the same as
that for a Group 1 wastewater stream.
These provisions for control of emissions from process contact
cooling towers are independent of the provisions of the NESHAP for
Industrial Cooling Towers (40 CFR part 63, subpart Q) which may also be
applicable to these cooling towers.
The EPA solicits comments on the emission reduction potential,
costs, and technical feasibility of all control options for process
contact cooling towers at PET facilities. Any comments on alternate
control options should address the emissions from the cooling tower,
the emissions from any wastewater discharged from the equipment
required by the control option, and any ``reactor process'' or
``distillation column'' vent emissions associated with the option.
6. Emissions Averaging
Today's proposed standards would apply essentially the same
emissions averaging scheme as has been adopted by the HON, although the
emissions averaging provisions of the proposed rule are entirely
contained in the proposed rule instead of referring to the subpart G
emissions averaging provisions. Under the proposed rule, emissions
averaging would be allowed among five collocated existing emission
points belonging to the same subcategory. This number may be increased
by three additional points if pollution prevention measures are to be
used to control emission points to be included in the average. However,
emissions from batch process vents and equipment leaks would not be
allowed to be averaged. The owner or operator must demonstrate that the
averaging scheme will not result in greater hazard or risk relative to
strict compliance with the standards in the absence of averaging.
The EPA specifically requests comments on the selection of the
limit of (5, or 8 if pollution prevention measures are used) emission
points to be allowed per subcategory for purposes of averaging in this
proposed rule. Will this limit preclude known opportunities within real
facilities to generate cost-effective credits within a category or
subcategory? Any comments on this need to address specifics on the
emission and cost quantities computed, with detailed calculations and
references to show how these quantities were determined.
The EPA is including emissions from process contact cooling towers
and vacuum system wastewater at existing PET facilities in the
emissions averaging procedures for the proposed rule. As noted earlier,
the proposed standards would (1) prohibit existing PET facilities from
using cooling tower water in the contact condensers associated with
vacuum systems, and (2) would require the control of any wastewater
stream generated by the vacuum system containing organic HAP listed on
Table 9 of the wastewater provisions in [[Page 16105]] subpart G of
this part to the level required for a Group 1 process wastewater
stream. Control is required regardless of the organic HAP concentration
and flowrate of the stream.
The proposed prohibition for cooling tower water would eliminate
organic HAP emissions from the process contact cooling towers since the
cooling tower water would not come in contact with the organic HAP
generated by the process. If an owner or operator elected to comply
with the proposed emissions averaging procedures, the owner or operator
could elect not to eliminate process contact cooling tower water from
the vacuum system. This would create a debit; that is, organic HAP
emissions would now occur from the cooling tower, whereas, under the
proposed rule, no organic HAP emissions would occur. Thus, the proposed
emissions averaging procedures only include process contact cooling
towers in the equation for the calculation of debits. On the other
hand, since the proposed standard would eliminate organic HAP emissions
from the cooling tower, there is no opportunity for an owner or
operator to control cooling tower emissions to a level more stringent
than the proposed rule. Thus, the proposed emissions averaging
procedures for calculating credits do not include process contact
cooling towers. The EPA is specifically requesting information on
methodologies which could be used to estimate emissions from process
contact cooling towers.
The EPA requests comments on all aspects of the implementation of
emissions averaging and on ways that the emissions averaging provisions
can be made more flexible without reducing the emission reduction. A
discussion of the rationale for the proposed emissions averaging
provisions is contained in Chapter 4 of the Basis and Purpose Document.

G. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions and Monitoring
Requirements

Compliance and performance test provisions and monitoring
requirements contained in today's proposed rule are very similar to
those found in the HON (subpart G of part 63). Each type of emission
point is discussed briefly in the paragraphs below. Also, significant
differences from the parameter monitoring requirements found in subpart
G are discussed.
1. Continuous Process Vents
The proposed regulations for process vents from continuous unit
operations (continuous process vents) require the owner or operator to
either calculate a TRE index value to determine whether each continuous
process vent is a Group 1 or Group 2 vent, or the owner or operator can
elect to comply with the control requirements without calculating the
TRE index. The TRE index value is determined after the last recovery
device in the process or prior to venting to the atmosphere. The TRE
calculation involves an emissions test or engineering assessment and
use of the TRE equations in the proposed rule.
Performance test provisions are included for Group 1 continuous
process vents to verify that the control device achieves the required
performance. Monitoring provisions necessary to demonstrate compliance
are also included in the proposed rule.
Compliance provisions for continuous process vents at polystyrene
and PET facilities are included in the proposed rule. For owners or
operators electing to comply with a kg TOC/Mg of product limit,
procedures to demonstrate compliance are provided. Also, procedures are
included in the proposed rule to demonstrate compliance with the
requirement to reduce overall process vent emissions (continuous and
batch) by 84 percent for new SAN, batch facilities.
2. Batch Process Vents
Similar to the provisions for continuous process vents, there is a
procedure for determining which batch process vents are Group 1 and
which are Group 2. This procedure is based on annual emissions and
annual average flowrate of the batch process vent. Equations for
estimating annual emissions and annual average flowrates are provided
in the proposed rule.
Performance test provisions are included for Group 1 batch process
vents to verify that the control or recovery device achieves the
required performance. Monitoring provisions necessary to demonstrate
compliance are also included in the proposed rule.
For Group 2 batch process vents, the proposed rule requires owners
and operators to establish a batch cycle limitation. The batch cycle
limitation limits the number of batch cycles that can be accomplished
for a given batch unit operation per year (i.e., for the operations
that feed a single batch process vent). This enforceable limitation
ensures that a Group 2 batch process vent does not become a Group 1
batch process vent as a result of running more batches than anticipated
when the group determination was made. The determination of the batch
cycle limitation is not tied to any previous production amounts. An
affected source may set the batch cycle limitation at any level it
desires as long as the batch process vent remains a Group 2 batch
process vent. Alternatively the proposed rule would allow owners and
operators to declare any Group 2 batch process vent to be a Group 1
batch process vent. In such cases, control of the batch process vent is
required.
As described earlier, procedures are included in the proposed rule
to demonstrate compliance with the requirement to reduce overall
process vent emissions (continuous and batch) by 84 percent for new
SAN, batch facilities.
3. Storage Vessels
Monitoring and compliance provisions include periodic visual
inspections of vessels, roof seals, and fittings, as well as internal
inspections. If a control device is used, the owner or operator must
identify the appropriate monitoring procedures to be followed in order
to demonstrate compliance. Monitoring parameters and procedures for
many of the control devices likely to be used are already identified in
other parts of the proposed rule. Reports and records of inspections,
repairs, and other information necessary to determine compliance are
also required by the proposed rule.
4. Wastewater
For demonstrating compliance with the various requirements, the
proposed rule allows the owners or operators to either conduct
performance tests or to document compliance using engineering
calculations. Appropriate compliance and monitoring provisions are
included in the regulation.
5. Equipment Leaks
The proposed rule retains the use of Method 21 to detect leaks.
Method 21 requires a portable organic vapor analyzer to monitor for
leaks from equipment in use. A ``leak'' is a concentration specified in
the regulation for the type of equipment being monitored and is based
on the instrument response to methane (the calibration gas) in air. The
observed screening value may require adjustment for response factor
relative to methane if the weighted response factor of the stream
exceeds a specified multiplier. The proposed rule requires the use of
Method 18 to determine the organic content of a process stream. Test
procedures using either a gas or a liquid for pressure testing the
batch system are specified to test for leaks.
[[Page 16106]]

6. Heat Exchange Systems
Monitoring of cooling water is required to detect leaks in non-
contact heat exchange systems. If a leak is detected, the heat exchange
system must be repaired.
7. Process Contact Cooling Towers
Owners and operators of affected sources subject to these
provisions are required to indicate in their Implementation Plan and
Notification of Compliance Status reports that cooling tower water will
not be used in contact condensers associated with vacuum systems.
8. Continuous Parameter Monitoring
When compared to the HON, the proposed rule contains two
significant differences related to continuous parameter monitoring.
First, the proposed rule does not allow any excused excursions. The
proposed rule, as did subpart G, requires at least 75 percent of
monitoring data to constitute a valid days worth of data for continuous
and batch process vents. Failure to have a valid day's worth of
monitoring data is considered an excursion. The criteria for
determining a valid day's or hour's worth of data are provided in the
proposed rule. Second, the procedure for determining the parameter
monitoring level for continuous and batch process vents is both more
specific and restrictive than the procedure in subpart G because it
relies exclusively on performance tests.

H. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The general recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this
subpart are very similar to those found in subpart G of 40 CFR part 63.
The proposed rule also relies on the provisions of subpart A of 40 CFR
part 63. A table included in the proposed rule designates which
sections of subpart A apply to the proposed rule. Specific
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for each type of emission
point are also included in the proposed rule.
The proposed rule requires sources to keep records and submit
reports of information necessary to document compliance. Records must
be kept for 5 years. The following six types of reports must be
submitted to the Administrator as appropriate: (1) Initial
Notification, (2) Implementation Plan (if an operating permit
application has not been submitted or, for new sources, an application
for approval of construction or reconstruction), (3) Emissions
Averaging Plan, (4) Notification of Compliance Status, (5) Periodic
Reports, and (6) other reports. The requirements for each of the six
types of reports are summarized below. In addition, sources complying
with the equipment leak requirements contained in subpart H must follow
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of subpart H.
1. Initial Notification
The Initial Notification is due 120 days after the date of
promulgation for existing sources. For new sources, it is due 180 days
before commencement of construction or reconstruction, or 45 days after
promulgation, whichever is later. The notification must list the
thermoplastic processes that are subject to the proposed rule, and
which provisions may apply (e.g., continuous process vents, batch
process vents, storage vessels, wastewater, and/or equipment leak
provisions). A detailed identification of emission points is not
necessary for the Initial Notification. The notification, however, must
include a statement of whether the affected source expects that it can
achieve compliance by the specified compliance date.
2. Implementation Plan
The Implementation Plan details how the affected source plans to
comply. An Implementation Plan would be required only for affected
sources that have not yet submitted an operating permit application or
for new sources that have not yet submitted the same information as
part of their application for approval of construction or
reconstruction.
The Implementation Plan would be due 12 months prior to the date of
compliance. For new sources, Implementation Plans would be submitted
with the Notification of Compliance Status.
The information in the Implementation Plan should be incorporated
into the affected source's operating permit application. The terms and
conditions of the plan, as approved by the permit authority, would then
be incorporated into the operating permit.
The Implementation Plan would include a list of emission points
subject to the continuous process vents, batch process vents, storage
vessels, wastewater, heat exchange systems, process contact cooling
towers, and equipment leak provisions and, as applicable, whether each
emission point (e.g., storage vessel or process vent) is Group 1 or
Group 2. The control technology or method of compliance planned for
each Group 1 emission point must be specified.
The plan must also certify that appropriate testing, monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping will be done for each Group 1 emission
point. If an affected source requests approval to monitor a unique
parameter, a rationale must be included.
3. Emissions Averaging Plan
The Emissions Averaging Plan would be due 18 months prior to the
date of compliance. New sources are not allowed to comply through the
use of emissions averaging.
For points included in emissions averaging, the Emissions Averaging
Plan would include: an identification of all points in the average and
whether they are Group 1 or Group 2 points; the specific control
technique or pollution prevention measure that will be applied to each
point; the control efficiency for each control used in the average; the
projected credit or debit generated by each point; and the overall
expected credits and debits. The plan must include a demonstration that
the emissions averaging scheme will not result in greater hazard or
risk than if the emission points would comply with the standards in the
absence of averaging. The plan must also certify that the same types of
testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping that are required by
the proposed rule for Group 1 points will be done for all points (both
Group 1 and Group 2) included in an emissions average. If an affected
source requests approval to monitor a unique parameter or use a unique
recordkeeping and reporting system, a rationale must be included in the
Emissions Averaging Plan.
4. Notification of Compliance Status
The Notification of Compliance Status would be required 150 days
after the affected source's compliance date. It contains the
information for Group 1 emission points and for all emission points in
emissions averages, necessary to demonstrate that compliance has been
achieved. Such information includes, but is not limited to, the results
of any performance tests for continuous and/or batch process vents and
wastewater emission points; one complete test report for each test
method used for a particular kind of emission point; TRE determinations
for continuous process vents; group determinations for batch process
vents; design analyses for storage vessels and wastewater emission
points; monitored parameter levels for each emission point and
supporting data for the designated level; and values of all parameters
used to calculate emission credits and debits for emissions
averaging. [[Page 16107]]
5. Periodic Reports
Generally, Periodic Reports would be submitted semiannually.
However, there are two exceptions. First, quarterly reports must be
submitted for all points included in an emissions average. Second, if
monitoring results show that the parameter values for an emission point
are above the maximum or below the minimum established levels for more
than 1 percent of the operating time in a reporting period, or the
monitoring system is out of service for more than 5 percent of the
time, the regulatory authority may request that the owner or operator
submit quarterly reports for that emission point. After 1 year,
semiannual reporting can be resumed, unless the regulatory authority
requests continuation of quarterly reports.
All Periodic Reports would include information required to be
reported under the recordkeeping and reporting provisions for each
emission point. For emission points involved in emissions averages, the
report would include the results of the calculations of credits and
debits for each month and for the quarter. For continuously monitored
parameters, the data on those periods when the parameters are above the
maximum or below the minimum established levels are included in the
reports. Periodic Reports would also include results of any performance
tests conducted during the reporting period and instances when required
inspections revealed problems. Additional information the affected
source is required to report under its operating permit or
Implementation Plan would also be described in Periodic Reports.
6. Other Reports
Other reports required under the proposed rule include: reports of
start-up, shutdown, and malfunction; process changes that change the
compliance status of process vents; and requests for extensions of
repair and notifications of inspections for storage vessels and
wastewater.
In addition, quarterly reporting of the number of batch cycles
accomplished for Group 2 batch process vents is required. Every fourth
quarterly report would be required to include the total batch cycles
accomplished during the previous 12 months, and a statement whether the
owner or operator is in compliance with the batch cycle limitation.

V. Solicitation of Comments

The Administrator welcomes comments from interested persons on any
aspect of the proposed rule, and on any statement in the preamble or
the referenced supporting documents. The proposed rule was developed on
the basis of information available. The Administrator is specifically
requesting factual information that may support either the approach
taken in the proposed standards or an alternate approach. To receive
proper consideration, documentation or data should be provided.
Specifically, the EPA is requesting comments and data on several
aspects of the proposed rule. First, the EPA solicits comments and data
on the technical feasibility and costs for emission control techniques
for the vacuum system and associated process contact cooling towers
used in PET production as described in Section IV.F.5 of this preamble
and in the Basis and Purpose Document, Chapter 6. Second, the EPA
solicits comments on several aspects of the emissions averaging
provisions as described in Section IV.F.6 of this preamble and in the
Basis and Purpose Document, Chapter 4. The emissions averaging
provisions in this proposed rule are modeled after those in the HON.
The EPA is interested in comments on all aspects, but is especially
interested in comments on the limitation of the number of emission
points allowed in an average and on ways that the implementation of
emissions averaging can be made more flexible without reducing the
emission reduction. Third, the EPA solicits comments related to the use
of subpart DDD emission limits and the proposed modification to subpart
DDD. Fourth, and finally, in some instances, the EPA has required
control more stringent than that required by the MACT floor. In these
instances, the EPA has judged the impacts to be reasonable. The EPA
specifically solicits comments on these decisions.

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts

This section presents the air, non-air environmental (water and
solid waste), energy, cost, and economic impacts resulting from the
control of organic HAP emissions under this rule.

A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP

The proposed rule would affect ABS, SAN, MABS, MBS, polystyrene,
PET, and nitrile facilities that are major sources in themselves, or
that are located at a major source. Based on available information, all
of the facilities at which these thermoplastics are produced were
judged to be major sources for the purpose of developing these
standards. (Final determination of major source status occurs as part
of the compliance determination process undertaken by each individual
source.)
Impacts are presented relative to a baseline reflecting the level
of control in the absence of the rule. The current level of control was
well understood because emissions and control data were collected on
each facility included in the analysis. The impacts estimates were
determined for both existing facilities and new facilities (i.e., those
that are expected to begin operation through 1999).
The expected growth rate in each of the seven source categories was
analyzed (see Docket No. A-92-45, Category II-B) and the SID. Based on
this analysis, the following average annual growth rates (percent per
year) through 1999 were estimated:
ABS--4 percent.
SAN--4 percent.
MABS--3 percent.
MBS--3 percent.
Polystyrene--3 percent.
PET--10 percent for bottle-grade resins and 4 percent for
other PET resins.
Nitrile--3 percent.
The impacts for existing sources were estimated by bringing each
facility's control level up to the proposed standards. For new sources,
impacts were based on identifying the number of new facilities required
to meet the expected growth within the source category, identifying the
types of facilities (e.g., batch versus continuous) that would be
built, and then selecting a subset of the existing facilities to
represent the expected growth. The impacts on these ``new'' facilities
were determined by applying the proposed standards for new sources to
the selected subset of facilities assuming the existing level of
control. This methodology is discussed in detail in Docket No. A-92-45,
Category II-B and the SID.

B. Primary Air Impacts

The proposed standards are estimated to reduce organic HAP
emissions from all existing sources by 11,750 Mg/yr from a baseline
level of 24,780 Mg/yr. This is a 47 percent reduction. For new
facilities, the proposed standards are estimated to reduce organic HAP
emissions by 7,395 Mg/yr from a baseline level of 14,920 Mg/yr, for a
50 percent reduction. Table 11 summarizes the organic HAP emission
reductions for each individual subcategory.

^{[[Page 16108]]
Table 11.--Organic HAP Emissions and Emission Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing sources New sources
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Emission Emission
Baseline, reduction, Percent Baseline, Reduction, Percent
Mg/yr Mg/yr reduction Mg/yr Mg/yr reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABS, continuous mass.............. 240 190 80% 95 87 92%
ABS, continuous emulsion ^{a........ 1,110 >180 >16% 400 >115 >29%
ABS, batch emulsion............... 500 56 11% 35 15 43%
ABS, batch suspension............. 15 5 33% 13 5 38%
ABS, latex........................ 3 2 67% -- -- --
SAN, continuous................... 110 65 60% 40 25 63%
SAN, batch........................ 35 13 37% 20 6 30%
ASA/AMSAN......................... 100 94 94% -- -- --
MABS^{a............................. 86 >38 >44% -- -- --
MBS............................... 190 130 68% 20 16 80%
Polystyrene, continuous........... 1,440 1,060 74% 330 240 73%
Polystyrene, batch................ 190 130 68% -- -- --
Expandable polystyrene............ 450 92 20% -- -- --
PET-TPA, continuous............... 6,090 2,400 40% 6,090 2,200 36%
PET-TPA, batch^{a................... 1,310 >6 >1% 1,310 >6 >1%
PET-DMT, continuous............... 4,480 2,330 52% 3,190 1,810 57%
PET-DMT, batch.................... 8,400 4,950 59% 3,380 2,870 85%
Nitrile........................... 30 10 33% -- -- --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals^{b..................... 24,780 11,750 47% 14,920 7,395 50%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--No new growth projected, therefore no impacts expected.
^{a A portion of the emission reductions for this subcategory are confidential business information.
^{b Total values are affected by the subcategories for which some data are confidential business information.

C. Non-Air Impacts

The proposed standards are not expected to generate any adverse
water impacts. Depending on the methods selected to comply with the
proposed prohibition of cooling tower water in contact condensers, the
amount of wastewater generated at PET facilities could decrease.
The proposed standards are not expected to increase the generation
of solid waste at any Group IV thermoplastic facility.

D. Energy Impacts

Energy impacts include increased energy use (fuel) for the
operation of control equipment, energy credits attributable to the
prevention of organic HAP emissions from equipment leaks, and emissions
of particulates, sulfur dioxides (SOx), and nitrogen oxide (NOx)
(secondary air impacts) associated with increased energy use. Under
today's proposed rule, energy use is expected to increase by
approximately 30,000 barrels of oil per year for existing sources and
44,000 for new sources. The emissions of secondary air pollutants
associated with this energy increase are 70 Mg/yr for existing sources
and 80 Mg/yr for new sources. At the same time, energy credits
attributable to the prevention of organic HAP emissions from equipment
leaks are approximately 17,000 barrels of oil per year for existing
sources and 8,000 for new sources. This results in a net increase of
approximately 13,000 barrels of oil per year for existing sources and
36,000 for new sources.
These figures are related to the control of process vents,
wastewater operations, and equipment leaks. Energy impacts related to
storage vessels were not estimated since many storage vessels would be
controlled through the use of internal floating roofs which do not have
any associated energy impacts. Further, the estimates above do not
include the projected energy savings associated with control of
emissions from process contact cooling towers and vacuum system
wastewater associated with the manufacture of PET. The majority of
existing vacuum systems are operated with steam jets, which are very
energy intensive. The precise affect of the proposed rule on the use of
steam jets cannot be predicted with accuracy. However, it is
anticipated by the EPA that compliance with the proposed rule will, in
almost all cases, decrease the energy demand of the vacuum systems.
Given the relatively small energy impacts projected for the control
of process vents, wastewater operations, and equipment leaks and the
projected energy savings associated with control of vacuum system air
emissions, the EPA has judged the energy impacts associated with
today's proposed rule to be acceptable.

E. Cost Impacts

Cost impacts include the capital costs of new control equipment,
the cost of energy (supplemental fuel, steam, and electricity) required
to operate control equipment, operation and maintenance costs, and the
cost savings generated by reducing the loss of valuable product in the
form of emissions. Also, cost impacts include the costs of monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting associated with the proposed standards.
Average cost effectiveness ($/Mg of pollutant removed) is also
presented as part of cost impacts and is determined by dividing the
annual cost by the annual emission reduction. Table 12 presents the
estimated capital and annual costs and average cost effectiveness by
subcategory.

^{[[Page 16109]]
Table 12.--Summary of Cost Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing sources New sources
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Subcategory Total annual Average cost- Total annual Average cost-
capital costs, effectiveness capital costs, Effectiveness
cost, $1000 $1000/yr ($/Mg) cost, $1000 $1000/yr ($/Mg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABS, continuous mass.......... 210 100 550 150 38 430
ABS, continuous emulsion^{a..... >3,540 >1,300 <7,160>3,490 >1,730 <14,970 abs,="" batch="" emulsion...........="" 430="" 310="" 5,550="" 18="" 14="" 960="" abs,="" batch="" suspension.........="" 28="" 19="" 3,570="" 28="" 19="" 3,760="" abs,="" latex....................="" 0.5="" -0.5="" -240="" --="" --="" --="" san,="" continuous...............="" 450="" 160="" 2,520="" 180="" 38="" 1,490="" san,="" batch....................="" 80="" 33="" 2,520="" 1="" -1.3="" -210="" asa/amsan.....................="" 550="" 200="" 2,150="" --="" --="" --="">^{a......................... 90 >-2 >-50 -- -- --
MBS........................... 550 360 2,720 440 234 14,200
Polystyrene, continuous....... 770 280 260 200 90 350
Polystyrene, batch............ 300 160 1,270 -- -- --
Expandable polystyrene........ 110 50 540 -- -- --
PET-TPA, continuous........... 40,790 2,970 1,230 2,160 -3,926 -1,770
PET-TPA, batch^{a............... >30 >18 <3,180>30 >18 <3,180 pet-dmt,="" continuous...........="" 28,250="" 3,010="" 1,300="" 2,200="" -970="" -540="" pet-dmt,="" batch................="" 22,080="" 3,360="" 680="" 1,440="" -38="" -13="" nitrile.......................="" 9="" 7="" 660="" --="" --="" --="" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------="">^{b................. 98,270 12,330 1,050 10,340 -2,750 -370
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--No new growth projected, therefore no impacts expected.
^{aA portion of the costs and/or emission reductions for this subcategory are confidential business information.
^{bTotal values are affected by the subcategories for which some data are confidential business information.

Under the proposed rule, it is estimated that total capital costs
for existing sources would be $98 million (1989 dollars), and total
annual costs would by $12.3 million (1989 dollars) per year. It is
expected that the actual compliance cost impacts of the proposed rule
would be less than presented because of the potential to use common
control devices, upgrade existing control devices, use other less
expensive control technologies, implement pollution prevention
technologies, or use emissions averaging. Since the effect of such
practices is highly site-specific and data were unavailable to estimate
how often the lower cost compliance practices could be utilized, it is
not possible to quantify the amount by which actual compliance costs
would be reduced.

F. Economic Impacts

The economic impact analysis for the selected regulatory
alternatives shows that the estimated price increases for the affected
chemicals range from 0.1 percent for nitrile to 2.8 percent for SAN.
Estimated decreases in output range from 0.1 percent for polystyrene to
4.6 percent for SAN. Net annual exports (exports minus imports) are
predicted to decrease by an average of 2.5 percent.
As many as five PET facilities and one ABS facility are at risk of
discontinuing PET and ABS production, respectively, due to the burden
of compliance with the standard. This does not mean that the facilities
affected face the risk of closure. The facilities affected will
continue to produce other chemicals whose processes are not affected by
this standard.
Three assumptions in the analysis likely lead to an overestimate of
the number of facilities at risk of discontinuing production of
affected chemicals. First, the economic analysis model assumes that all
PET and ABS facilities compete in a national market, though in reality
some facilities may be protected from some competitors by regional or
local trade barriers.
Second, it is assumed that the facilities with the highest control
cost per unit of production also have the highest baseline production
costs per unit. This assumption may not always be true since the
baseline production costs per unit are not known, and thus the
estimated number of facilities that would discontinue production of
affected chemicals may be too high.
Third, for the production of PET, the selected regulatory
alternative includes the control of organic HAP emissions from the
vacuum system and process contact cooling tower. Control of these
emissions is the highest cost item in the selected regulatory
alternative and is the biggest contributor to the risk of facilities
discontinuing PET production. The economic analysis is based on the use
of ethylene glycol jets to control these emissions. There are a number
of potential control technologies for these emissions that are expected
by the EPA to have lower costs, but costs for these control
technologies were not calculated. Ethylene glycol jets are being used
by at least two facilities and data were available from one facility.
The EPA has and will continue to investigate other control technologies
for control of these emissions. The EPA invites comment and data on
other control technologies.
More detailed information concerning the economic impacts and
analysis are included in the Regulatory Impacts Analysis document
(Docket No. A-92-45, Category II-B).

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the
proposed standard in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air
Act. Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the proposed
standards for ABS, SAN, MABS, MBS, polystyrene, PET, and nitrile
production should contact the EPA at the address given in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. Oral presentations will be limited to 15
minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written statement
before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements
should be addressed to the Air Docket Section address given in the
ADDRESSES section [[Page 16110]] of this preamble and should refer to
Docket No. A-92-45.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be
available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours
at the EPA's Air Docket Section in Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES
section of this preamble).

B. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of
the proposed rule. The principal purposes of the docket are:
(1) To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can intelligently and effectively participate in
the rulemaking process; and
(2) To serve as the record in case of judicial review (except for
interagency review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A)).

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, the OMB has notified
the EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA submitted this
action to the OMB for review. Changes made in response to suggestions
or recommendations from the OMB were documented and included in the
public record.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875

In compliance with Executive Order 12875, we have involved State,
local, and tribal governments in the development of this rule. These
governments are not directly impacted by the rule; i.e. they are not
required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of the
rule. However, they will be required to implement the rule; e.g.
incorporate the rule into permits and enforce the rule. They will
collect permit fees which will be used to offset the resource burden of
implementing the rule. Two representatives of the State governments
have been members of the EPA Work Group developing the rule. The Work
Group has met numerous times, and comments have been solicited from the
Work Group members, including the State representatives. Their comments
have been carefully considered in the rule development. In addition,
all States are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule during the
public comment period, and the EPA intends to fully consider these
comments in the final rulemaking.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information collection request (ICR)
document has been prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1737.01), and a copy may
be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M
Street SW (2136), Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 938 hours per response per year, including time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any
OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (or RFA, Public Law 96-354,
September 19, 1980) requires Federal agencies to give special
consideration to the impact of regulation on small businesses. The RFA
specifies that a final regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared
if a proposed regulation will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. To determine whether a final RFA
is required, a screening analysis, otherwise known as an initial RFA,
is necessary.
Regulatory impacts are considered significant if:
(1) Annual compliance costs increase total costs of production by
more than 5 percent, or
(2) Annual compliance costs as a percent of sales are at least 20
percent (percentage points) higher for small entities, or
(3) Capital cost of compliance represent a significant portion of
capital available to small entities, or
(4) The requirements of the regulation are likely to result in
closures of small entities.
A ``substantial number'' of small entities is generally considered
to be more than 20 percent of the small entities in the affected
industry.
Consistent with Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards,
a thermoplastic producing firm is classified as a small entity if it
has less than 750 employees, and is unaffiliated with a larger entity.
Based upon this criterion, only one firm employs less than 750 workers.
Data were available to examine two of the criteria: the potential
for closure, and a comparison of compliance costs as a percentage of
sales.
For criterion one, the affected source is not expected to fall at
risk of closure from the regulation, thus this criterion is not met.
Also, the compliance costs were only 0.001 percent of total sales for
the affected source, and this does not meet criterion two.
The affected firm is an MBS producer, and since the economics
analysis lead to the conclusion that no MBS facilities are at risk of
closure, this criterion is not met. Also, the compliance costs were
only 0.001 percent of total sales for the firm.
In conclusion, and pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The basis for the certification is that the
economic impacts for small entities do not meet or exceed the criteria
in the [[Page 16111]] Guidelines to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as shown above. Further information on the initial RFA is
available in the background information package (see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section near the beginning of this preamble).

G. Miscellaneous

In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
The Administrator will welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed
regulation, including health, economic and technical issues, and on the
proposed test methods.
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of
promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as
evaluation of the residual health and environmental risks, any overlap
with other programs, the existence of alternative methods,
enforceability, improvements in emission control technology and health
data, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 15, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-7066 Filed 3-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Visit the Official Version

Document Information

Published:: 03/29/1995
Department:: Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:: Proposed Rule
Action:: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
Document Number:: 95-7066
Dates:: Comments. Comments must be received on or before May 30, 1995.
Pages:: 16090-16111 (22 pages)
Docket Numbers:: AD-FRL-5175-9
RINs:: 2060-AE37: NESHAP: Polymers and Resins, Group IV
RIN Links:: https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2060-AE37/neshap-polymers-and-resins-group-iv
PDF File:: 95-7066.pdf
CFR: (1): 40 CFR 63