[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 93 (Monday, May 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10973]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 16, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-4881-6]
RIN 2060-AD97
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Epoxy
Resins Production and Non-nylon Polyamides Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed standard would limit emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from existing and new facilities that manufacture
polymers and resins produced from epichlorohydrin feedstock,
specifically, basic liquid epoxy resins (BLR) and non-nylon polyamide
resins, also known as wet strength resins (WSR). The proposed standards
implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act) amendments of 1990,
which require the Administrator to regulate emissions of hazardous air
pollutants listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The intent of these
standards is to protect the public by requiring new and existing major
sources to control emissions to the level achievable by the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT), taking into consideration the
cost of achieving such emission reductions, any nonair quality and
other air quality related health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 15, 1994.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by June 6, 1994, a public hearing will be held on June
15, 1994, beginning at 10 a.m. Persons interested in attending the
hearing should call Ms. Lina Hanzely at (919) 541-5673 to verify that a
hearing will be held.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact EPA by June 6, 1994, by contacting Ms. Lina
Hanzely, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch, (MD-13), U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-5673.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air Docket Section (LE-131), Attention: Docket No. A-92-
37, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
Background Information Document
The background information document (BID) for the proposed standard
may be obtained from the docket or from the U. S. EPA Library (MD-35),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-2777. Please refer to ``Emissions from Epoxy Resins Production and
Non-Nylon Polyamides Production--Background Information for Proposed
Standards'' EPA 453/R-94-033a.
Docket. Docket No. A-92-37, containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed standards, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at EPA's Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall, room 1500, 1st
Floor, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
standards, contact Mr. Randy McDonald at (919) 541-5402, Chemicals and
Petroleum Branch, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. List of Source Categories
II. 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. Pollutants to be Regulated
C. Affected Emission Points
D. Format of the Standards
E. Proposed Standards
F. Certification of Compliance
G. Monitoring Requirements
H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
V. Summary Of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP
B. Air Impacts
C. Water and Solid Waste Impacts
D. Energy Impacts
E. Cost Impacts
F. Economic Impacts
VI. Rationale
A. Selection of Emission Points to be Covered by the Standards
B. Designation of Sources
C. Selection of Basis and Level of Proposed Standards for
Existing Sources
D. Selection of Basis and Level of Proposed Standards for New
Sources
E. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards
F. Selection of Compliance and Performance Testing Provisions
and Monitoring Requirements
G. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
H. Operating Permit Program
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Miscellaneous
I. List of Source Categories
Section 112 of the amended Act requires that 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) and
work practice and equipment standards under section 112(h) for
categories of sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, EPA published an
initial list of major and area source categories to be regulated (57 FR
31576). Included on that list were major sources emitting HAP from
epoxy resins and non-nylon polyamides production.
The categories of major sources that would be affected by this
regulation are defined as the manufacture of basic liquid epoxy resins
(BLR) and resins made of epichlorohydrin (EPI) cross-linked non-nylon
polyamides, also known as wet strength resins (WSR). The BLR source
category does not include the manufacture of specialty epoxy resins
(epoxy resins that are not BLR) or the modification of epoxy resins
(BLR that are blended with solvents, reactive diluents, or other
resins). The WSR source category are those that are made with dibasic
esters, dicarboxylic acids, amines, and EPI. In developing the
background information to support the proposed standard, no reasons for
subcategorizing either of the source categories were identified.
Production methods used in the two source categories include both
batch and continuous operations. The sizes of the facilities range from
those that make several thousand pounds of resin per year (lb/yr) to
those that produce over 100 million lb/yr. Air emissions of HAP
compounds originate from breathing and working losses from storage
tanks, venting of process vessels, leaks from piping equipment used to
transfer HAP compounds (equipment leaks), and volatilization of HAP
from wastewater streams. Pollutants (HAP) emitted from the production
processes include EPI, methanol, and hydrochloric acid (HCl). Detailed
information describing manufacturing processes and emissions can be
found in ``Emissions from Epoxy Resins Production and Non- Nylon
Polyamides Production--Background Information for Proposed Standards''
(EPA 453/R-94-033a), Chapter 3.
As of 1990, only three U.S. companies were producing BLR. All three
of these facilities are considered to be major sources according to the
Act criterion of having the potential to emit 10 tons per year of any
one HAP or 25 tons per year of combined HAP. There are at least 17
facilities in the U.S. that manufacture WSR; of these, 9 are considered
major sources because they are co-located within larger chemical
manufacturing operations, based on the criteria mentioned above. The
proposed standard would apply to all major sources that produce BLR
and/or WSR. Area sources would not be subject to this standard.
II. Background
In 1989, EPA conducted a study that examined the use of
epichlorohydrin in industry. This study identified the BLR and WSR
industries as the major users of epichlorohydrin in the U.S.
Under section 112(c) of the Act, the Administrator is required to
publish and from time to time revise a list of source categories and
subcategories that emit one or more of the hazardous air pollutants
listed in section 112, as amended. Information from the study of
epichlorohydrin use in industry was used during the development of the
source category list. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published
the initial list of source categories, which includes epoxy resins
production and non-nylon polyamides production.
III. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection
Agency 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 Agency to use this pollutant list to develop and publish a
list of source categories for which NESHAP will be developed; this list
was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).
The Agency must list all known 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 per year or more of any one
HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP.
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 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 the ``maximum achievable control technology'' (MACT). The
selection of MACT must reflect consideration of the cost of achieving
the emission reduction, any nonair quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements for control levels more stringent than
the floor (described below).
The MACT floor is the least stringent level 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)). Existing source standards should
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)).
In a March 9, 1994 Federal Register notice reopening the public
comment period for determination of ``MACT floor'' for NESHAP source
categories (59 FR 11018), the Agency considered more than one
interpretation of the statutory language concerning the MACT floor for
existing sources and solicited comment on them. The MACT floor decision
that the EPA will make on the basis of this March 9, 1994 notice will
have broad precedential effects, and will presumptively be followed by
the Agency in any rulemakings subsequently promulgated under Title III
of the Act. The MACT floor determinations proposed in today's
rulemaking may therefore be affected by the Agency's final
interpretation of ``MACT floor.''
IV. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Source Categories To Be Regulated
The proposed standards would regulate HAP emissions from epoxy
resins production (facilities that produce BLR), and from non-nylon
polyamides production (facilities that produce WSR), that are
determined to be major sources. The standards would apply to existing
sources as well as new sources.
B. Pollutants To Be Regulated
Hazardous air pollutants emitted from existing BLR and wet strength
resin production processes include epichlorohydrin, methanol, and
hydrochloric acid. The proposed standards would regulate emissions of
these compounds, as well as any other HAP that may be emitted.
In addition, note that epichlorohydrin is listed under section
112(r) of the Act. The intent of section 112(r), Prevention of
Accidental Releases, is to focus on chemicals that pose a significant
hazard to the community should an accident occur, to prevent their
accidental release, and to minimize consequences should a release
occur. Epichlorohydrin, along with the other substances listed under
section 112(r)(3), is listed because it is known to cause, or may be
reasonably anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse
effects to human health or the environment (see 59 FR 4478, January 31,
1994). Sources that handle epichlorohydrin in greater quantities than
the established threshold quantity under section 112(r)(5) will be
subject to the risk management program requirements under Section
112(r)(7) (see 58 FR 54190, October 20, 1993).
C. Affected Emission Points
Emission points identified for BLR and wet strength resin
production include process vents, equipment leaks, storage tanks, and
wastewater.
D. Format of the Standards
The standards for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater for
existing facilities are presented in an emission limit format in the
units of pounds of HAP per 1 million pounds of product (lb HAP/MM lb
product). Facilities will have the option of using any control
technology or pollution prevention strategy, as long as the HAP
production-based emission limits are achieved. An emission limit format
cannot be used for the standard for new facilities because it would
identify a specific facility's production level, which is claimed as
confidential business information. Therefore, standards for new
facilities are in the equipment standard format. Facilities would have
to implement the controls specified in the standard, or demonstrate
equivalency, to achieve compliance.
The EPA solicits comments on the equipment standard format of the
standards for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater at new
facilities. In particular, the EPA solicits comments on whether
performance standards for vents, tanks, and wastewater at new
facilities can be used without compromising confidential business
information and whether operators can comply with performance standards
for vents, tanks, and wastewater at new facilities without compromising
confidential business information.
Standards for equipment leaks are specified for new and existing
BLR facilities, and are presented as an alternative standard for new
and existing wet strength resin facilities. Equipment leak standards
are in the form of equipment/work practice standards. Facilities would
be required to implement the program specified in the proposed
regulation to achieve compliance with the standard.
E. Proposed Standards
Table 1 summarizes the standards for existing BLR and WSR sources.
In each case, for purposes of determining compliance with the emission
requirements, the source was divided into two portions: (1) The
combination of process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater, and (2)
equipment leaks. The proposed standards for BLR production would
require existing facilities to limit emissions from all process vents,
storage tanks, and wastewater combined to a level at or below 130 lb
HAP/MM lb production. Existing BLR facilities would also be required to
implement the leak detection and repair (LDAR) program specified in the
Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart H).
The LDAR program specified under subpart H requires specific equipment
modifications and work practices that reduce emissions from equipment
leaks.
Table 1.--Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet strength resins
Basic liquid -----------------------------------
Emission source epoxy resins Equivalent
standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Process Emission limit of Emission limit No requirement.
vents, storage 130 lb/MM lb of 10 lb/MM lb
tanks, and product. product.
wastewater.
(2) Equipment Requirements of No requirement.. Requirements of
leaks. 40 CFR 63, 40 CFR 63,
subpart H. subpart H.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Process (a) Route process (a) Control No requirement.
vents, storage vents and process vent
tanks and storage tank emissions w/
wastewater. vents to a water-cooled
common water condenser @ 25
scrubber w/ deg.C.
efficiency of 99
percent.
(b) Recirculate (b) Eliminate ................
scrubber liquor the production
back to process. of methanol by-
product in the
manufacturing
process
(c) Control (c) Eliminate ................
wastewater to the use of
99%. hydrochloric
acid in the
manufacturing
process
(2) Equipment Requirements of No requirement.. Requirements of
leaks. 40 CFR 63, 40 CFR 63,
subpart H. subpart H.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new BLR facilities, the standards would be based on the
technology used by the best performing facility in the category for
process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater, which is the use of a 99
percent efficient water scrubber on all process vents coupled with
recirculation of the scrubber effluent to the process, and 99 percent
control of emissions from wastewater. As for existing facilities, new
facilities would be required to implement the LDAR program of subpart H
to control equipment leak emissions.
For existing wet strength resin facilities, the proposed standards
would require an emission limit of 10 lb HAP/MM lb product from process
vents, wastewater, and storage tanks combined. No emission limits or
equipment standards are required for equipment leaks; however,
facilities may elect to implement the subpart H LDAR program in lieu of
complying with the emission limit for process vents, storage tanks, and
wastewater, as this alternative would achieve a greater emission
reduction. Similar to BLR production, for new wet strength resin
facilities, the standards would be based on the technology used by the
best performing source in the category. This technology is the use of a
water-cooled condenser, from which the outlet gas temperature shall be
no higher than 25 deg.C, on the batch reactor and no methanol by-
product formation or hydrochloric acid usage, or the implementation of
the subpart H LDAR program to control equipment leak emissions.
F. Certification of Compliance
1. Existing sources
a. Process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points. To
determine compliance with the emission limit for process vents, storage
tanks, and wastewater combined, the owner or operator of an existing
BLR or WSR manufacturing facility would calculate the total emissions
per product produced by summing the production-based emission values
for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater according to the
following equation:
E=PV=ST=WW (1)
where:
E=Emissions, lb HAP/106 lb product
PV=Process vent emissions, lb HAP/106 lb product
ST=Storage tank emissions, lb HAP/106 lb product
WW=Wastewater emissions, lb HAP/106 lb product
The required calculation methods for each type of emission point are
described below for the BLR and WSR source categories.
i. BLR source category. For basic liquid resin production, tests
would be required to determine the flow rate and HAP concentration of
emissions from process vents and, where applicable, storage tank vents
that are combined with process vents. Data from three 1-hour tests
would be used to calculate an average HAP emission rate in pounds per
hour. Initial performance tests for uncontrolled streams or streams
controlled by devices other than flares and certain boilers and process
heaters would consist of measuring HAP concentration using the EPA
Method 18 or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Method 25A may
be used only if a single HAP compound greater than 50 percent of the
total organic HAP in the vent stream and that HAP compound is used for
calibration. Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is
specified for measuring vent stream flowrate.
To determine the production-based emission rate for process vents,
the owner or operator would calculate an hourly rate of production
based on production data for the previous year and the actual operating
hours during the same annual period. For each vent, the hourly emission
rate, determined from the average of three 1-hour tests, would be
divided by the hourly production rate (calculated as described above)
to determine the production-based emission rate for the vent. The sum
of production-based emission rates from all process vents (and storage
tank vents if manifolded with process vents) constitutes the first term
in the equation used to determine compliance. Because emissions are
divided by the annual production of the previous year, testing must
take place under operating conditions that represent the production
rate for the previous year.
Emissions from storage tanks not manifolded with process vents
would be calculated according to the methodology described in 40 CFR
63.150(f)(3). The annual emissions would be divided by the annual
production from the previous year to determine the production-based
emission rate from storage tanks.
Emissions from wastewater would be calculated according to the
methodology described in 40 CFR 63.150(f)(5). Monthly emissions
calculated using this methodology would be divided by a monthly
production rate, which would be calculated by dividing the annual
production rate for the previous year by 12. Testing is required by 40
CFR 163.150(f)(5) to determine wastewater stream parameters such as the
flow rate and HAP concentration. Because emissions would be divided by
a production rate calculated using production data for the previous
year, test conditions must reflect typical production for the previous
year.
ii. WSR source category. If a process uses a condenser to recover
HAP, emissions would be calculated for the purpose of determining
compliance using equations developed for batch operations, in lieu of
compliance tests. Testing would be required to determine the emission
rate from uncontrolled vents and vents controlled by devices other than
condensers. Testing requirements are the same as for the BLR source
category, except that testing would take place over the batch cycle,
rather than hourly. Likewise, the production-based emission rates used
in the equation to determine compliance would be calculated based on
emissions and production data obtained on a per-batch basis, not per-
hour as is the case for the BLR source category.
As with the BLR source category, storage tank emission calculations
would follow the methodology described in 40 CFR 63.150(f)(3). The
methodology of 40 CFR 63.150(f)(5) would be used to determine emissions
from wastewater.
b. Equipment leaks emission point. To determine compliance with the
standard for equipment leaks, BLR and WSR facilities would have to
demonstrate that an LDAR program meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart H (40 CFR 63.160-63.183) is in place. This includes
performance of the test methods and procedures used to verify the
adequacy of monitoring equipment outlined in 40 CFR 63.180.
2. New Sources
a. BLR source category. Although the proposed standards for new BLR
sources are essentially equipment standards, control efficiencies are
required for the equipment specified in the standards. Therefore, in
addition to installing the equipment required by the standards, new BLR
facilities would be required to perform the appropriate EPA test
methods to demonstrate that the common water scrubber required to
control emissions from process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater is
achieving 99 percent control. The testing methodology described in 40
CFR 163.150(f)(5) would be required to demonstrate that wastewater
treatment systems are achieving 99 percent control.
b. WSR source category. The equipment standards for new WSR
facilities do not specify any control efficiencies that must be
achieved. Therefore, facilities would only be required to demonstrate
operation of a water-cooled condenser at an outlet temperature of 25
deg.C, that no methanol is being produced during the manufacturing
process, and that no hydrochloric acid is being used to produce WSR.
G. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring is required by the proposed standards to determine
whether a BLR or wet strength resin process is in compliance. This
monitoring is done either by: (1) Continuously measuring outlet mass
flowrate and concentration, or by (2) continuously measuring a site-
specific operating parameter, the value of which is established by the
owner or operator during the initial compliance test. The operating
parameter value is defined as the minimum or maximum value established
for a control device or process parameter that, if achieved by itself
or in combination with one or more other operating parameter values,
determines that an owner or operator is complying with the applicable
emission limitation or standards. A summary of the monitoring
requirements of the proposed standards is provided in Table 2.
Table 2.--Monitoring Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission source Parameter monitored Noncompliance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLR process and
storage*:
Carbon adsorber Continuous measurement One-hour average outlet
controlled. of outlet HAP concentration is
concentration using greater than the
Method 25A if possible maximum concentration
or Method 18 if established during the
speciation necessary. compliance test.
Uncontrolled.... Continuous measurement One-hour average outlet
of outlet HAP concentration is
concentration using greater than the
Method 25A if possible maximum concentration
or Method 18 if established during the
speciation necessary. compliance test.
Condenser Continuous measurement One-hour average exhaust
controlled. of outlet gas gas temperature is
temperature. greater than the
maximum temperature
established during the
compliance test.
Scrubber Continuous measurement One-hour average
controlled. of scrubber liquid scrubber flowrate is
flowrate. below the minimum
flowrate established
during the compliance
test.
Flare controlled Continuous verification Loss of pilot flame.
of pilot flame presence
with heat sensing
device such as a UV
sensor or thermocouple.
Wastewater...... Flow rate, pH, and HAP Monitored values are
concentration measured outside the range
daily; TSS and BOD established during
measured biweekly. initial compliance.
All air Flow diversion: if Presence of flow
pollution bypass lines that could detected in the line,
control devices. divert flow from the rupture of the car-
control device to the seal, or removed of the
atmosphere exist flow lock-and-key must be
must be monitored reported in the
continuously or the quarterly reporting
line must be secured requirement of Sec.
with a car-seal or lock- 63.10. Occurrence does
and-key type not establish
configuration that is noncompliance.
inspected daily.
Wet strength resin
batch reactor:
Condenser Continuous measurement Average outlet gas
controlled. of outlet gas temperature over the
temperature during each step is greater than
step in batch process. the maximum temperature
established from
compliance
calculations.
Carbon adsorber Continuous measurement Average outlet HAP
controlled of outlet HAP concentration over the
Uncontrolled. concentration using step is greater than
Method 25A if possible the maximum value
or Method 18 if established during the
speciation necessary. compliance test.
Scrubber Measurement of average Average scrubber
controlled. outlet gas flowrate flowrate over the step
during each step in is below the acceptable
batch process. minimum flowrate
established during the
compliance test.
Wastewater...... pH, flow rate and HAP Monitored values are
concentration measured outside the range
daily; TSS and BOD established during
measured bi-weekly. compliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Monitoring of emissions from storage tanks is required only if
emissions are combined with other tank or process emissions prior to
discharge to the atmosphere.
H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
The owner or operator of any BLR or wet strength resin source
subject to these standards would be required to fulfill all reporting
requirements outlined in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63.
V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP
These NESHAP would affect BLR and WSR facilities that are major
sources in themselves, or constitute a portion of a major source. There
are three existing manufacturers of BLR, all of which were assumed 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). Of the 17 existing facilities that manufacture
WSR, 9 were assumed to be considered major sources. The expected growth
rate for the BLR industry and the wet strength resin industry is
expected to be between 2 and 3 percent through 1995. Impacts associated
with the control options are presented in Table 3 and Table 4; the
options selected as proposed standards are footnoted.
Table 3.--Impacts of Meeting MACT Floors and Regulatory Alternatives for BLR Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Baseline Emission Energy burden, Wastewater Capital costs, Annual Cost cost
Regulatory option emissions, reduction, 106Btu/yr generated, $/1,000 costs, $ effectiveness, effectiveness,
Mg/yr Mg/yr gal/yr $/Mg $/Mg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT floor............................... 122 52 1.5 3,200,000 335 127,500 2,500 ..............
Regulatory Alternative 1a................ 122 95 1.5 3,200,000 410 140,000 1,500 300
Regulatory Alternative 2................. 122 97 1.5 3,200,000 419 152,000 1,600 6,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThis option was chosen as the standard.
Table 4.--Impacts of Meeting MACT Floors and Regulatory Alternatives for Wet Strength Resin Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Baseline Emission Energy Wastewater Capital Annual costs, Cost cost
Regulatory option emissions, reduction, burden, generated, costs, $/ $ effectiveness, effectiveness,
Mg/yr Mg/yr 106 Btu/yr tons/yr 1,000 $/Mg $/Mg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT floora................................. 27 2 4 0 510 520,000 210,000 ..............
Regulatory Alternative I.................... 27 16 4 0 648 572,000 35,750 3,700
Regulatory Alternative II................... 27 17 4 0 808 792,000 46,590 220,000
Equivalent standard......................... 27 14 0 0 138 52,000 3,700 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThis option was chosen as the standard.
B. Air Impacts
The proposed standards would reduce HAP emissions from existing BLR
sources by 95 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (105 tons per year [tons/yr])
from the baseline level, a reduction of 78 percent from baseline.
Emissions of HAP from existing wet strength resin sources would
decrease by 2 Mg/yr (2 tons/yr) if facilities elect to comply with the
MACT floor, a reduction of 7 percent from baseline. If facilities elect
to implement the alternative standard for the process vents, storage
tanks, and wastewater source, HAP emissions would decrease by 14 Mg/yr
(15 tons/yr), a reduction of 52 percent from baseline.
C. Water and Solid Waste Impacts
The proposed standards will result in the generation of 3,200,000
gallons of wastewater per year from the BLR source category, assuming
gas absorbers (water scrubbers) are installed to control process vents
and storage tank emissions. This amount of wastewater represents
approximately 10 percent of the wastewater currently generated at the
BLR production facility and a small portion of the total wastewater
from the plant. EPA believes the additional wastewater can be treated
on-site in the plant's existing wastewater treatment system. Wastewater
impacts may be less if an alternative control measure is used to comply
with the standard.
There is no wastewater generated from the WSR production process,
because emissions are controlled with condensers. There is also no
solid waste generated from the BLR or WSR production processes.
D. Energy Impacts
The proposed standards for the BLR source category would require an
additional energy usage of 1.5 x 106 Btu per year (Btu/yr).
Additional energy usage for the WSR source category is 4 x 106
Btu/yr if the MACT floor is implemented; however, if facilities elect
to comply with the alternative standard, the additional energy usage is
negligible.
E. Cost Impacts
The emission reductions that would be required by this regulation
could be met using one or more of several different techniques. To
determine costs, certain control scenarios were assumed. The scenarios
used in costing were judged to be the most feasible scenarios possible
for meeting the requirements of the proposed standards from a technical
and cost standpoint. The total control cost includes the capital cost
to install the control device, the costs involved in operating the
control device, and costs associated with monitoring the device to
ensure compliance. Monitoring costs include the cost to purchase and
operate monitoring devices, as well as reporting and recordkeeping
costs required to demonstrate compliance.
The cost impacts of the proposed standards are summarized in Table
3 and Table 4. Nationwide, the total annual cost of this standard to
the BLR industry is $140,000.
The total cost of this regulation to the wet strength resin
industry is $520,000, assuming all facilities do not decide to achieve
compliance with the alternative standard (controlling equipment leaks).
If all facilities do decide to comply with the alternative standard,
the total annual cost is $52,000.
F. Economic Impacts
The economic impact analysis of this standard shows that the
estimated price increase from compliance with the recommended
alternative for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater is 0.05
percent for BLR. Estimated reduction in market output for BLR is 0.08
percent.
For WSR, control of equipment leaks is not required, but is allowed
as an alternative standard because it achieves an emission reduction
which is equivalent to or better than the MACT floor level of control
for vents, tanks, and wastewater. Assuming compliance with the
alternative standard for WSR, the estimated price increase is 0.22
percent and the estimated reduction in market output is 0.20 percent.
No plant closures are expected from compliance with this set of
alternatives. For more information, consult the background information
document for these standards (see the Background Information Documents
section near the beginning of this preamble).
VI. Rationale
A. Selection of Emission Points To Be Covered by the Standards
Emissions from BLR and WSR production occur from the following
emission points: Storage tanks, process vents, equipment leaks, and
wastewater. The proposed standards consider all of these emission
points. Wastewater emissions from wet strength resin facilities are
negligible, although they are included as an emission point.
B. Designation of Sources
For these proposed standards, a source is defined as all HAP
emission points within a facility that are related to the production of
BLR or WSR, including process vents, storage tanks, wastewater, and
equipment leaks. For the purpose of developing the standards, the
emission points included in the definition of the source are divided
into two portions:
1. All process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission
points; and
2. Equipment leaks.
The Administrator considered proposing a single emission limit that
would apply to process vents, storage tanks, wastewater and equipment
leaks. However, equipment leaks cannot be included with process vents,
storage tanks, and wastewater because: (1) The negotiated standard for
equipment leaks has no fixed performance level; and (2) no method
currently exists for determining the magnitude of allowable emissions
to assign for leaks. Without a method to determine the magnitude of
allowable emissions to assign for equipment leaks, an averaging policy
that included equipment leaks would be difficult to enforce. Therefore,
the MACT floor and each regulatory alternative has two components--one
for the combination of process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater,
and another for equipment leaks. When methods are developed to assign
allowable emission levels for particular leak points, the EPA will
consider revising these standards to allow inclusion of equipment leaks
in the emission limit.
The Administrator also considered proposing separate emission
limits for each type of emission point, but determined that this
approach was not feasible because tanks, and wastewater emission points
are intertwined by existing control strategies. For example, in
existing BLR facilities, process vents and storage tank emissions are
manifolded together and controlled using a common device. The device
commonly used to control these emissions is a water scrubber, which
functions in transferring potential HAP emissions from gaseous point
sources to a wastewater emission source. Therefore, a single emission
limit is proposed for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater
combined to give facilities flexibility in complying with the standard.
Specifying a single emission limit for this combination of emission
points gives facilities the latitude to determine the best way for them
to achieve emission reductions. Separate regulatory options were
identified for equipment leaks for the reasons described at the
beginning of this section.
C. Selection of Basis and Level of Proposed Standards for Existing
Sources
1. BLR Source Category
Because there are three existing facilities in the U.S. that
produce BLR (all three are believed to be major sources), EPA used the
average of the total production-based emission factors achieved by the
three facilities to determine the MACT floors. Using this method, the
production-based emission limit of 130 lb HAP/MM lb product was
established as the MACT floor for the process vents, storage tanks, and
wastewater portion of the source based on information from BLR
facilities.
Existing BLR facilities control equipment leak emissions using
various leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. The impacts
associated with the MACT floor and regulatory alternatives for sources
at existing BLR facilities are presented in Table 3.
Regulatory Alternative II represents the highest level of control
identified for existing BLR sources. Because the MACT floor for the
process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater portion of the source
reflects a high level of control (the use of water scrubbers, carbon
adsorbers, refrigerated condensers, and flares on process and storage
tank vents, and biodegradation to reduce emissions from wastewater),
only one area was identified as a possible additional controlled
emission point: the generation of HAP-containing scrubber effluent,
which is normally routed to the facility's wastewater treatment system.
This wastewater could be controlled by recirculating scrubber effluent
to the process. This measure would result in an emission limit of 125
lb HAP/MM production. Therefore, this emission limit was chosen for
Regulatory Alternative II for the process vents, storage tanks, and
wastewater portion of the source. The control method proposed for the
equipment leaks portion of the source was to implement the LDAR program
specified in 40 CFR 63, subpart H, which represents a higher level of
control than is currently practiced by any existing BLR facility.
In evaluating Regulatory Alternative II, the Administrator
considered the impacts (air, cost, water, and energy). Regulatory
Alternative II was rejected because the incremental emission reduction
over Regulatory Alternative I (2 Mg/yr [2 tons/yr]) is not significant
considering the associated cost. Water and energy impacts were
examined; however, because the magnitude of these impacts were small,
they were not a major factor in the decision to reject Regulatory
Alternative II.
The first regulatory alternative above the MACT floor (Regulatory
Alternative I) considered for existing BLR sources was to implement the
LDAR program specified in 40 CFR 63, subpart H to control the equipment
leaks portion of the source, and to require the MACT floor emission
limit of 130 lb HAP/MM lb product for the process vents, storage tanks,
and wastewater portion. The LDAR program of subpart H would achieve a
higher level of control than the MACT floor; also, the cost of this
control option was judged to be reasonable (see Table 3). Therefore,
the Administrator selected Regulatory Alternative I as the standard for
existing BLR sources.
2. WSR Source Category
The MACT floor for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater for
existing wet strength resin facilities was calculated based on data
supplied by the nine major sources making up this source category. The
MACT floor represents the average value of the lowest five production-
based emission totals from major sources in the industry. For the
process vents, wastewater, and storage tanks portion of the source, the
emission limit is 10 lb/MMlb production. Because no existing facility
in the WSR source category controls equipment leak emissions, the MACT
floor for the equipment leaks portion of the source represents an
uncontrolled situation. Impacts associated with the MACT floor and
regulatory alternatives for sources at existing wet strength resin
facilities are presented in Table 4.
Regulatory Alternative II, the most stringent alternative
identified for existing WSR sources, would require an emission limit of
5 lb HAP/MM lb product for the process vents, storage tanks, and
wastewater portion of the source, as well as requiring the subpart H
LDAR program for the equipment leaks portion of the source. In
evaluating Regulatory Alternative II, the Administrator considered the
impacts (air, cost, water, and energy). Regulatory Alternative II was
rejected because the incremental emission reduction over Regulatory
Alternative I, (1 Mg/yr) is not significant considering the associated
cost. No additional water or energy impacts were associated with
Regulatory Alternative II; therefore, water and energy impacts were not
a factor in the decision to reject Regulatory Alternative II.
Regulatory Alternative I, the first regulatory alternative above
the MACT floor for existing WSR sources, would require the MACT floor
emission limit of 10 lb HAP/MM lb production for the process vents,
storage tanks, and wastewater portion of the source, and the LDAR
program described in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H for the equipment leaks
portion of the source. In evaluating Regulatory Alternative I, the
Administrator considered the impacts (air, cost, water, and energy).
Considering the emission reduction and cost of Regulatory Alternative
I, the Administrator judged this option to be unreasonable. No
additional water or energy impacts were associated with Regulatory
Alternative I; therefore, water and energy impacts were not a factor in
the decision to reject Regulatory Alternative I.
Because both Regulatory Alternatives were judged to be
unreasonable, the control levels proposed for both the combined process
vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points, as well as the
equipment leaks portions of existing WSR sources are the MACT floor
levels. However, the Administrator proposes the implementation of the
subpart H LDAR program for equipment leaks as an equivalent standard
for existing WSR sources. The subpart H LDAR program represents an
effective control option with reasonable associated costs for the
equipment leaks portion of the source, with significant emission
reductions, no negative water impacts, and negligible energy impacts.
The subpart H LDAR program was chosen as an alternative standard
because it achieves an emission reduction which is equivalent to or
better than that achieved by the technology basis for the floor level
of control for vents, tanks, and wastewater and because costs of
implementation of this LDAR program are in many cases much more
reasonable than those incurred from requiring compliance with the
emission limit (see Table 4).
D. Selection of Basis and Level of Proposed Standards for New Sources
1. BLR Source Category
For new sources, the MACT floor shall be no less stringent than the
level representing the best controlled similar source. For new BLR
sources, the MACT floor for the portion of the source consisting of the
combination of process vents, storage tanks and wastewater is achieved
by: (1) Routing process vents and storage tank vents to a common water
scrubber with an efficiency of 99 percent; (2) recirculating scrubber
effluent back to the process, and (3) Controlling HAP emissions from
wastewater by 99 percent. This strategy represents a 99 percent
emission reduction for this portion of the source. No regulatory
alternatives more stringent than the new source MACT floor could be
identified for this portion of new BLR sources.
The MACT floor for the equipment leaks portion of new BLR sources
is the LDAR program of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.
Regulatory Alternative I for new BLR sources would require sources
to implement the subpart H LDAR program to control equipment leaks, in
addition to the MACT floor requirement for process vents, storage
tanks, and wastewater. The subpart H LDAR program represents a cost-
effective control option for equipment leaks with significant emission
reductions, no negative water impacts, and negligible energy impacts.
For these reasons, the Administrator chose Regulatory Alternative I as
the proposed standard for new BLR sources.
2. WSR Source Category
The MACT floor for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater for
new wet strength resin facilities is achieved by equipping the batch
reactor with a cooling water condenser, and by operating the process
without the use of hydrochloric acid and prohibiting the formation of
methanol. This represents the highest level of control that is
technically feasible. Therefore, no regulatory alternatives above the
MACT floor could be identified.
Because no existing facility in the WSR source category is
controlling equipment leak emissions, the MACT floor represents an
uncontrolled situation. Regulatory Alternative I for new WSR sources is
the LDAR program described in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H for the
equipment leaks portion of the source (the same as for existing
facilities), and the MACT floor equipment standard described in the
previous paragraph for the process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater
portion of the source. In evaluating Regulatory Alternative I, the
Administrator considered the impacts (air, costs, water, and energy).
Considering the emission reduction and cost of Regulatory Alternative
I, the Administrator judged this option to be unreasonable. No
additional water or energy impacts were associated with Regulatory
Alternative I; therefore, water and energy impacts were not a factor in
the decision to reject Regulatory Alternative I.
Because the only Regulatory Alternative above the MACT floor was
judged to be unreasonable, the control levels proposed for both the
combined process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points,
as well as the equipment leaks portions of new WSR sources are the MACT
floor levels. However, the Administrator proposes the implementation of
the subpart H LDAR program for equipment leaks as an equivalent
standard for new WSR sources. The subpart H LDAR program represents an
effective control option with reasonable associated costs for the
equipment leaks portion of the source, with significant emission
reductions, no negative water impacts, and negligible energy impacts.
The subpart H LDAR program was chosen as an alternative standard
because it achieves an emission reduction which is equivalent to or
better from that achieved by the technology basis for the floor level
of control for vents, tanks, and water and because costs of
implementation of this LDAR program are expected to be much more
reasonable than those incurred from requiring compliance with the
emission limit.
E. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards
The formats of the proposed standards were selected in order to
give facilities the most flexibility possible in achieving the level of
control required by the selected regulatory alternative. Because the
MACT floor for the process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater portion
of the source reflects control by various methods, the format needs to
allow sufficient flexibility for facilities to meet the level of the
standard using the various control methods already in place to the
extent possible.
Of the formats considered (mass emission limits, percent
concentration, percent reduction, equipment standards, work practice
standards), the mass emission limit format was chosen because various
combinations of controls can be employed among several emission points
to achieve the same mass emission rate. Also, mass emission limits
encourage facilities to reduce emissions through process changes, work
practice changes, and other methods to avoid costly add-on controls. In
this way, mass emission limits serve to encourage pollution prevention.
An equipment standard format is not needed for this source because an
emission limit can be established. Formats such as specifying a
concentration or a percent reduction, offer no advantages over the
emission limit format, and would be more cumbersome from an enforcement
standpoint due to the different characteristics of the emission points
that make up the source of process vents, storage tanks, and
wastewater.
For process vent, storage tank, and wastewater emission points
within new sources, however, equipment standards have been proposed. An
emission limit format cannot be used for these emission points within
new sources because it would identify specific facilities' production
levels, which are claimed as confidential business information.
However, facilities would have the opportunity to employ other
technologies to meet the standard by demonstrating equivalence.
The EPA solicits comments on the equipment standard format of the
standards for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater at new
facilities. In particular, the EPA solicits comments on whether
performance standards for vents, tanks, and wastewater at new
facilities can be used without compromising confidential business
information and whether operators can comply with performance standards
for vents, tanks, and wastewater at new facilities without compromising
confidential business information.
The LDAR program of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H is a combination of
an equipment standard/work practice format. Under section 112 of the
Act, national emission standards must, whenever possible, take the
format of a numerical emission standard. Typically, an emission
standard is written in terms of an allowable emission rate, performance
level, or allowable concentration. These types of standards require the
direct measurement of emissions to determine compliance. For some
emission points, emission standards cannot be prescribed because it is
not feasible to measure emissions. Section 112(h)(2) recognizes this
situation by defining two conditions under which it is not feasible to
establish an emission standard. These conditions are: (1) If the
pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and
constructed to emit or capture the pollutant; or (2) if the application
of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations. If an emission standard cannot be established,
the EPA may instead establish a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard or combination thereof.
For equipment leak emission points, such as pumps and valves, EPA
has previously determined that it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce emission standards. Except for those items of equipment for
which standards can be set at a specific concentration, the only method
of measuring emissions is total enclosure of individual items of
equipment, collection of emissions for a specified time period, and
measurement of the emissions. This procedure, known as bagging, is a
time-consuming and prohibitively expensive technique considering the
great number of individual items of equipment in a typical process
unit. Moreover, this procedure would not be useful for routine
monitoring and identification of leaking equipment for repair.
Therefore, LDAR program of 40 CFR, subpart H, an equipment/work
practice standard, was chosen for the equipment leaks emission point.
F. Selection of Compliance and Performance Testing Provisions and
Monitoring Requirements
The proposed regulation contains compliance provisions that require
owners or operators to conduct an initial performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards. As a means of
demonstrating compliance with the standards following the initial
performance test, the owner or operator must also establish source-
specific parameters based on the characteristics of the emission
stream, process, or type of control device used. The Administrator
determined that these provisions were necessary to meet the monitoring
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
1. Testing and Monitoring
Compliance is comprised of initial performance testing and
continuous compliance verification, or monitoring. The proposed
requirements for initial compliance testing and any periodic or
continuous measurement to verify ongoing compliance are based on the
emission stream characteristics that would be encountered either at the
outlet of the control device or at the point of release to the
atmosphere for uncontrolled emission streams. Often, an important
factor to consider in evaluating emission stream characteristics is the
type of control device that is preceding the emission stream. Also, the
operating parameters of the device can be used as an indicator of the
level of control of the device and therefore, the outlet emissions. The
selection of appropriate test methods for initial and ongoing
compliance, therefore, is related to both the characteristics of the
stream and to the type of device used to control it. The discussion of
both factors is presented below.
2. Emission Stream Characteristics
An important characteristic to consider when evaluating measurement
methods are whether the streams are from continuous sources or whether
they are from batch sources. Streams that are from continuous sources
would have minimal variation in characteristics; the test measurement
method therefore can be intermittent in nature. For example, flowrate
and concentration can be sampled on an intermittent basis to obtain an
average emission value that presumably will not vary significantly.
Batch emission streams, however, are expected to have wide variation in
flowrate, composition, and conditions throughout the course of a batch
(i.e., with time). Often, proportional sampling of flowrate and
composition over the course of a batch to arrive at a total emission
number over the entire batch is necessary. Alternatively, simultaneous
measurement of flowrate and composition must be made to arrive at an
instantaneous emission rate. Because these methods are difficult, an
initial compliance test requiring concentration measurement is not
recommended for most batch operations. Specifically for these NESHAP,
equations are provided in the regulation to determine HAP emissions
from the batch reactor used in WSR production.
A second important characteristic of the emission stream to
consider during selection of a test method is the composition. If
organic material other than HAP are contained in the stream, it may be
necessary to speciate the stream or at least identify the HAP
constituents in the stream. This identification limits how continuously
the stream can be sampled. The most common technology that will be used
in identification is gas chromatography, specified in EPA Reference
Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Gas chromatography, coupled
with the quantification of material typically done with a flame-
ionization device (FID), EPA Reference Method 25A, can be done at sub-
minute intervals, but not continuously. However, if identification of
organic species is not necessary, an FID alone can be used. This
technology will provide a continuous reading of concentration.
3. Control Devices
The devices used to abate HAP emissions will affect the outlet
stream composition and conditions and therefore affect the degree of
confidence of the initial and continuous compliance methods. Devices
that are commonly used in the basic liquid resins and WSR industry to
control process vents and storage tank emissions are condensers, gas
absorbers (water scrubbers), carbon adsorbers, and flares. These
devices differ from one another in the type of streams that they
control and the outlet conditions of the streams.
i. Condensers. In the case of condensers, which are usually applied
to saturated emission streams and by design yield saturated streams, it
can be assumed that the components will be present at levels
corresponding to their saturated values (equilibrium) at the outlet
conditions. This measure provides a worst-case estimate of emissions.
Therefore, the direct measurement of concentration often may be
foregone in lieu of the measurement of stream temperature and flow rate
and subsequent calculation to yield mass emissions. For wet strength
resin batch reactors, this is the required measurement to determine HAP
concentration in both initial and continuous performance tests. Because
the emission streams controlled by condensers in basic liquid resin
manufacturing will be more likely to have multiple sources with
numerous components that will affect the ability to predict HAP
concentrations by measurement of secondary parameters, the direct
measurement of concentration is required at least in the initial
performance test. Thereafter, concentration measurements to establish
continuous compliance may be reasonably approximated with a measurement
of outlet gas temperature.
ii. Gas Absorbers. Gas absorbers (water scrubbers), however, differ
in that there is no parameter that can be measured and used to
establish a limit of HAP concentration. Often, the streams routed to
scrubbers are more dilute, and the control device functions in not only
changing the conditions of the gas temperature like a condenser would
do, but in employing concentration gradients to remove materials from
gas streams. In order to predict the performance of a gas absorber,
information must be known about the appropriate mass transfer
coefficients for the specific system. Most often, the mass transfer
coefficients are experimentally derived for specific applications and
are usually functions of the mass velocities and contacting path
variables. While it is possible to calculate the scrubber outlet
compositions without mass transfer information by assuming that the
amount of material transferred to the liquid is limited by the
equilibrium-defined composition, this information is not indicative of
the physical scrubber because it does not provide for the evaluation of
the contacting path. Therefore, a direct measurement of composition is
required during the initial performance test.
Evaluation of continuous compliance need not be done by continuous
direct measurement of HAP concentration from the scrubber effluent,
however. Another parameter, the liquid to gas molar ratio through the
scrubber, could be monitored to ensure required removal. The L/G ratio,
which often reduces to the measurement of L, the liquid molar flow
rate, because G, the gas molar flow rate is often constant, could be
measured during the initial performance test to evaluate the
sensitivity of the ratio with removal efficiency. Thereafter, the L/G
ratio could be used to verify appropriate removal if the ratio remained
within the limits established during the initial compliance test.
iii. Carbon Adsorbers. Streams controlled by carbon adsorption will
usually be diluted, compared to those controlled by condensers and
scrubbers. No surrogate parameters have been identified as measures of
HAP concentration or removal efficiencies. Therefore, a direct
measurement of concentration will be required during the initial
performance test as well as in continuous compliance monitoring.
iv. Flares. Compliance testing for flares can be complicated by the
formation of undesired products of combustion (including HAP) and the
inability to further capture and control these byproducts.
Nevertheless, if a facility chooses to use a flare as a control device,
EPA has established flare combustion efficiency criteria that specify
that 98 percent or greater combustion efficiency can be achieved
provided that certain operating conditions are met. If a HAP is formed
from combustion, the quantity formed must be considered when
calculating control efficiency. These conditions prescribe that the
flare must be operated with no visible emissions and with a flame
present and that the heating value and exit velocity of the gas routed
to the flare must be within certain ranges, depending upon whether the
flares are steam-assisted.
Additionally, the NESHAP general provisions provide for an initial
performance test to determine whether the net heating value will fall
within the applicable ranges for control at 98 percent. The performance
test involves measuring the incoming gas flowrate and the concentration
of combustible compounds (40 CFR 63.11) to determine net heating value.
However, it appears that as the number of compounds in the stream
increases, the determination of the net heating value becomes
increasingly difficult. Also, in light of the fact that flares are
often used to control discontinuous or upset conditions, the net
heating value at any one time is subject to change. Continuously
measuring the concentration of combustible compounds to determine
heating value on a continuous basis is probably not feasible.
Therefore, the enhanced monitoring method chosen for these standards is
to require that the presence of a pilot flame be monitored
continuously. Also, an initial measurement and characterization of the
inlet mass emissions to the flare is required for two reasons:
1. To determine the fraction of hazardous air pollutant emissions
that are being controlled by the flare; and
2. To determine the net heating value of the vent stream.
v. Wastewater. Because air emissions from wastewater treatment
systems cannot be collected and measured, certain parameters must be
identified that indicate the emission rate from wastewater for
monitoring purposes. The proposed methods for estimating wastewater
emissions for initial compliance with the proposed standards for the
emission source of process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater, as
well as for identifying enhanced monitoring parameter values for
wastewater, are those specified in 40 CFR 63.150(f)(5). The
requirements of 40 CFR 63.150(f)(5) consist of monitoring specific
wastewater treatment parameters and emission calculation methods.
Monitoring of the following wastewater parameters is required: inlet
flow rate, HAP concentration, pH, and biological oxygen demand. These
parameters were chosen for monitoring because they can be used to
determine wastewater treatment system performance.
vi. Storage Tanks. Storage tank emissions vary greatly over time,
which prohibits testing over reasonable periods of time. Therefore, no
initial compliance test is proposed for this emission point, unless
emissions are manifolded with process vents, in which case the
compliance tests specified for process vents apply. Instead, the
methods specified in 40 CFR 63.150(f)(3) are proposed to calculate
emissions. Emissions would be calculated based on the facility's
solvent usage records for the most recent 1-year period and divided by
the amount of product produced during the same period. A 1-year period
is necessary to reduce the effect of variation in solvent usage on the
emission calculation. Because emissions are calculated from factors,
and because storage tank emissions are not dependent on parameters that
can be controlled, no continuous monitoring requirements are proposed
for this emission point, except that facilities that control storage
tank emissions must certify that such controls are in proper working
order.
vii. Equipment Leaks. Like wastewater emissions, equipment leak
emissions occur in open areas and in most cases cannot feasibly be
captured. Therefore, no performance test is required for the equipment
leaks source. Instead, facilities must demonstrate that they have an
LDAR program in place that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart H. No monitoring requirements are proposed for equipment leaks,
as the proposed standard for equipment leaks is a work practice/
equipment standard.
5. Averaging Times
i. Initial compliance. The standards for the process vents, storage
tanks, and wastewater source at existing BLR and WSR production
facilities are in the form of mass emission limits. Initial compliance
is determined by adding the emissions per unit mass of product
calculated for each process vent, storage tank, and wastewater emission
point within the facility. For BLR production, a continuous process, a
1-hour averaging time is specified for process vent compliance tests;
the emission rate would be the average of the results of three 1-hour
tests. For WSR production, typically a batch operation, the emission
rates used to determine compliance would be the average of 3 tests
taken over for 3 different batch runs. Longer averaging times are
required for batch operations to minimize the effect of emissions that
vary significantly with time.
Storage tank emissions would be averaged over a period of 1 year,
based on HAP usage records from the previous year, to minimize the
effect of variation in solvent usage on the calculated emission rate. A
monthly averaging time is required for wastewater, as specified in 40
CFR 63.150(f)(5). Different averaging times are possible for different
emission types because emissions are divided by the production rate for
an equal time period. The resulting production-based emissions are then
added together according to Equation 1 and compared with the mass
emission limit to determine compliance.
ii. Monitoring. In accordance with Sec. 63.8(c)(4) of the General
Provisions, all continuous monitoring systems measuring either
emissions or an operating parameter shall complete a minimum of one
measurement cycle (sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each
successive 15-minute period.
BLR source category. For BLR manufacturers, the determination of
compliance varies for each type of control or capture system. Owners
and operators complying with the standard by using carbon adsorbers,
condensers, incinerators, and total enclosures on continuous processes
may be determined to be out of compliance with the standard if, for any
1-hour period, the average operating parameter value exceeds or is less
than the value established during the initial performance test, as
applicable. A 1-hour averaging time is chosen to determine compliance
because it parallels the length of time for each of the three test runs
conducted for the initial performance test.
WSR source category. Wet strength resins are produced in batch
processes, during which emissions may vary significantly. Therefore,
longer averaging times are necessary for WSR processes than for BLR
processes. The averaging time proposed for WSR processes is the time
required to complete one batch operation (typically about 8 hours).
Because producers of WSR do not vary the production process from batch
to batch, emissions data averaged over the course of one batch
operation would be representative of the actual emissions from future
batch runs.
G. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
The owner or operator of any BLR or wet strength resin facility
subject to these standards would be required to fulfill all reporting
requirements outlined in the General Provisions 40 CFR part 63. No
special considerations have been identified for these industries that
would warrant additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
H. Operating Permit Program
Under Title V of the Act, all HAP-emitting facilities will be
required to obtain an operating permit. Oftentimes, emission limits,
monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements are scattered
among numerous provisions of State implementation plans (SIP's) or
Federal regulations. As discussed in the proposed rule for the
operating permit program published on May 10, 1991 (58 FR 21712), this
new permit program would include in a single document all of the
requirements that pertain to a single source. Once a State's permit
program has been approved, each facility containing that source within
that State must apply for and obtain an operating permit. If the State
wherein the source is located does not have an approved permitting
program, the owner or operator of a source must submit the application
under the proposed General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.
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 epoxy resins production and non-nylon polyamides
production should contact 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 of this preamble and should refer to Docket No. A-92-
37.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be
available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours
at 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 EPA in the development of this
proposed rulemaking. 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 this 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 of 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
this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action for
OMB review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1681.01), 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 600 hours per source, 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.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA
to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small business
``entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed
regulation would have a significant economic impact on 20 percent or
more of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis must be
prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines for regulations like this one
whose start action notifications (SAN's) were filed before April 1992
indicate that an economic impact should be considered significant if it
meets one of the following criteria:
1. Compliance increases annual production costs by more than 5
percent, assuming costs are passed onto consumers;
2. Compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities are
at least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of sales
for large entities;
3. Capital costs of compliance represent a ``significant'' portion
of capital available to small entities, considering internal cash flow
plus external financial capabilities; or
4. Regulatory requirements are likely to result in closure of small
entities.
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. All of the affected BLR and WSR producers are large enough
not to satisfy the criteria for a small business. Consequently, no
significant small business impacts will result from compliance with
these standards.
F. 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: April 29, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-10973 Filed 5-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
