76408 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, carbonyl Public Hearing. If a public hearing is AGENCY sulfide, carbon disulfide, benzene, 1,3 held, it will be held at the EPA’s Office butadiene, toluene, and 2,4 toluene of Administration Auditorium, Research 40 CFR Part 63 diisocyanate (TDI). Benzene is a known Triangle Park, North Carolina, beginning [FRL±6899±9] human carcinogen, and 1,3 butadiene is at 10:00 a.m. considered to be a probable human Docket. Docket No. A–97–17 contains RIN 2060±AH68 carcinogen. The other pollutants can supporting information used in cause noncancer health effects in National Emission Standards for developing the generic MACT humans. These proposed standards will Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic standards. Dockets established for each implement section 112(d) of the Clean Maximum Achievable Control of the source categories proposed to be Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major Technology assimilated under the generic MACT sources to meet HAP emission standards standards with this proposal include: AGENCY: Environmental Protection reflecting the application of MACT. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Agency (EPA). DATES: Comments. Submit comments on (Docket No. A–2000–14), Carbon Black ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. or before February 5, 2001. Production (Docket No. A–98–10), Ethylene Production (Docket No. A–98– SUMMARY: This action proposes Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 22), and Spandex Production (Docket amendments to the ‘‘generic’’ maximum EPA requesting to speak at a public No. A–98–25). These dockets include achievable control technology (MACT) hearing by December 26, 2000, a public source category-specific supporting standards to add national emission hearing will be held on January 5, 2001. information. All dockets are located at standards for hazardous air pollutants ADDRESSES: Comments. Written the U.S. Environmental Protection (NESHAP) for four additional source comments should be submitted (in Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and categories: Cyanide Chemicals duplicate if possible) to: Air and Information Center, Waterside Mall, Manufacturing, Carbon Black Radiation Docket and Information Room M–1500, Ground Floor, 401 M Production, Ethylene Production, and Center (6102), Attention Docket Number Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, and Spandex Production. The generic MACT A–97–17, U.S. Environmental may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 standards provide a structural Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding framework allowing source categories Washington, DC 20460. All technical legal holidays. with similar emission types and MACT comments pertaining solely to control requirements to be covered individual source categories should be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For under one subpart, thus promoting submitted to the dockets established for information concerning the proposed regulatory consistency in NESHAP the individual source categories (see NESHAP, contact the following at the development. The EPA has identified Docket for individual docket numbers). Emission Standards Division (MD–13), these four source categories as major The EPA requests a separate copy also U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, sources of hazardous air pollutants be sent to Mr. Mark Morris (see FOR Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (HAP), including cyanide compounds, FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 27711:

Information type Contact Group Phone/facsimile/e-mail address

General ...... Mark Morris ...... Organic Chemicals Group ...... (919) 541±5416/(919) 541±3470/ morris.mark @epa.gov. Cyanide chemicals manufacturing .. Keith Barnett ...... Organic Chemicals Group ...... (919) 541±5605/(919) 541±3470/ barnett.keith @epa.gov. Carbon black production ...... John Schaefer ...... Organic Chemicals Group ...... (919) 541±0296/(919) 541±3470/ schaefer.john @epa.gov. Ethylene production ...... Warren Johnson ...... Organic Chemicals Group ...... (919) 541±5267/(919) 541±3470/ johnson.warren @epa.gov. Spandex production ...... Elaine Manning ...... Waste and Chemical Processes (919) 541±5499/(919) 541±3470/ Group. manning.elaine @epa.gov. Public hearing ...... Maria Noell ...... Organic Chemicals Group ...... (919) 541±5607/(919) 541±3470/ noell.maria @epa.gov.

SUPLLEMENTARY INFORMATION: filed online at many Federal Depository will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the Comments Libraries. procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Comments and data may be submitted Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for If no claim of confidentiality by electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-r- accompanies a submission when it is consideration must clearly distinguish [email protected]. Electronic comments received by the EPA, the information such information from other comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to may be made available to the public and clearly label it as CBI. Send avoid the use of special characters and without further notice to the encryption problems and will also be submissions containing such commenter. accepted on disks in WordPerfect proprietary information directly to the version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. following address, and not to the public Public Hearing All comments and data submitted in docket, to ensure that proprietary Persons interested in presenting oral electronic form must note the information is not inadvertently placed testimony or inquiring as to whether a appropriate docket number (see in the docket: Attention: Mark Morris, hearing is to be held should contact Ms. ADDRESSES). No confidential business c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer Maria Noell (see FOR FURTHER information (CBI) should be submitted (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 2 days in by e-mail. Electronic comments may be Hill Street, Durham NC 27701. The EPA advance of the public hearing. Persons

VerDate 112000 19:58 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76409 interested in attending the public documents so that they can effectively WWW through the Technology Transfer hearing must also call Ms. Noell to participate in the rulemaking process. Network (TTN). Following signature, a verify the time, date, and location of the Along with the proposed and copy of the rule will be posted on the hearing. The public hearing will provide promulgated standards and their TTN’s policy and guidance page for interested parties the opportunity to preambles, the contents of the docket newly proposed or promulgated rules present data, views, or arguments will serve as the record in the case of http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN concerning these proposed emission judicial review. (See section provides information and technology standards. 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory exchange in various areas of air text and other materials related to this Docket pollution control. If more information rulemaking are available for review in regarding the TTN is needed, call the The docket is an organized and the docket or copies may be mailed on TTN HELP line at (919) 541–5384. complete file of the record compiled by request from the Air Docket by calling the EPA in the development of this (202) 260–7548. A reasonable fee may Regulated Entities rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic be charged for copying docket materials. file because material is added Categories and entities potentially throughout the rulemaking process. The World Wide Web (WWW) regulated by this action include: docketing system is intended to allow In addition to being available in the members of the public and industries docket, an electronic copy of this involved to readily identify and locate proposed rule is also available on the

Category NAICS code SIC code Examples of regulated entities

Industrial ...... 325188, 325199 ...... 2819, 2869 ...... Producers and coproducers of hy- drogen cyanide and sodium cy- anide. 325182 ...... 2895 ...... Producers of carbon black by thermal-oxidative decomposi- tion in a closed system, thermal decomposition in a cyclic proc- ess, or thermal decomposition in a continuous process. 325110 ...... 2869 ...... Producers of ethylene from re- fined petroleum or liquid hydro- carbons. 325222 ...... 2824 ...... Producers of spandex by reaction spinning.

This table is not intended to be C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation exhaustive, but rather provides a guide Standards for Cyanide Chemicals and Coordination with Indian Tribal for readers regarding entities likely to be Manufacturing Governments D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 regulated by this action. To determine Cost, and Economic Impacts D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of whether your facility is regulated by this III. Carbon Black Production Children from Environmental Health action, you should examine the A. Introduction Risks and Safety Risks applicability criteria in § 63.1104 of the B. Summary of Proposed Standards for F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as proposed subpart. If you have any Carbon Black Production amended by the Small Business C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of questions regarding the applicability of Standards for Carbon Black Production this action to a particular entity, consult 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, G. National Technology Transfer and the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR Cost, and Economic Impacts Advancement Act FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. E. Solicitation of Comments H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of IV. Ethylene Production Children from Environmental Health Outline A. Introduction Risks and Safety Risks B. Summary of Proposed Standards for The information presented in this Ethylene Production I. Background preamble is organized as follows: C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Ethylene Production A. What is the Source of Authority for I. Background D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Development of NESHAP? A. What is the source of authority for Cost, and Economic Impacts Section 112 of the CAA requires us to development of NESHAP? E. Solicitation of Comments B. What criteria are used in the V. Spandex Production list categories and subcategories of development of NESHAP? A. Introduction major sources and area sources of HAP C. Why is the EPA proposing to include B. Summary of Proposed Standards for and to establish NESHAP for the listed today’s standards in the generic MACT Spandex Production source categories and subcategories. The standards? C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed categories of major sources covered by D. What are the proposed amendments to Standards for Spandex Production today’s proposed NESHAP were listed D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, subpart YY and the subparts referenced on the following dates: Cyanide Cost, and Economic Impacts Chemicals Manufacturing, July 16, 1992 by it? VI. Administrative Requirements II. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing A. Executive Order 12866, Regulator (57 FR 31576); Carbon Black A. Introduction Planning and Review Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197); B. Summary of Proposed Standards for B. Paperwork Reduction Act Ethylene Production, June 4, 1996 (61 Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism FR 28197); and Spandex Production,

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76410 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). A major owner or operator to other subparts for the development of the formats for the source of HAP is defined as any requirements necessary to demonstrate existing generic standards. stationary source or group of stationary compliance. D. What Are the Proposed Amendments sources within a contiguous area and We are proposing to include the to Subpart YY and the Subparts under common control that emits or has NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals Referenced By It? the potential to emit, considering Manufacturing, Carbon Black controls, in the aggregate, 9.1 Production, Ethylene Production, and We are proposing to add sections to megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per Spandex Production source categories subpart YY and the subparts referenced year (TPY)) or more of any single HAP in the generic MACT standards to by it that specify who has the authority or 22.7 Mg/yr or more (25 TPY) of simplify the rulemaking process, to to implement and enforce the subparts. multiple HAP. minimize the potential for duplicative These sections specify the authorities or conflicting requirements, to conserve that will be retained by the EPA B. What Criteria Are Used in the limited resources, and to ensure Administrator and the authorities that Development of NESHAP? consistency of the air emissions may be delegated to a State, local, or Section 112 of the CAA requires us to requirements applied to similar tribal agency. These proposed sections establish NESHAP for the control of emission points. We believe that the do not affect the stringency of the HAP from both new and existing major generic MACT regulatory framework is standards, nor would they increase the sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP appropriate for these source categories burden on a State, local, or tribal to reflect the maximum degree of because it allows us to incorporate agency. reduction in emissions of HAP that is specific applicability and control The proposed amendments clarify achievable. This level of control is requirements that reflect our decisions appropriate methods for demonstrating commonly referred to as MACT. on these source categories while also compliance with percent reduction The MACT floor is the minimum utilizing generic requirements requirements and emission control level allowed for NESHAP and previously established for similar concentration limits on combustion is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the emission sources that we have devices. The proposed amendments CAA. In essence, the MACT floor determined are also applicable here. allow owners and operators to use either ensures that all major sources achieve Section 112(d) of the CAA requires Method 25, 25A (under certain specific the level of control already achieved by that emission standards for control of conditions), or 18 to demonstrate the better-controlled and lower-emitting HAP be prescribed unless, in our compliance with the HAP percent sources in each source category or judgement, it is not feasible to prescribe emission reduction requirement. subcategory. For new sources, NESHAP or enforce emission standards. Section However, if Method 18 is used, we cannot be less stringent than the 112(h) identifies two conditions under clarify that only HAP that are present in emission control that is achieved in which it is not considered feasible to the inlet to the device can be used to practice by the best-controlled similar prescribe or enforce emission standards. characterize the percent reduction source. The NESHAP for existing These conditions are: (1) If the HAP across the device. Additionally, you sources can be less stringent than cannot be emitted through a conveyance must first determine which HAP are standards for new sources, but they device, or (2) if the application of present in the inlet gas stream (i.e., cannot be less stringent than the average measurement methodology to a uncontrolled emissions) using process emission limitation achieved by the particular class of sources is not knowledge or a screening procedure. best-performing 12 percent of existing practicable due to technological or When using Method 25 or 25A, you sources (or the best-performing 5 economic limitations. If emission must measure the inlet and outlet mass sources for categories or subcategories standards are not feasible to prescribe or emissions as carbon. with fewer than 30 sources). enforce, then we may instead We provided this clarification because In developing MACT, we also promulgate equipment, work practice, when organic compounds are controlled consider control options that are more design, or operational standards, or a by combustion processes, the organic stringent than the floor. We may combination of them. pollutants emitted at the outlet of the establish standards more stringent than Common formats for emission device are not the same as those the floor based on the consideration of standards include a percent reduction, entering the inlet to the device and are cost, nonair quality health and concentration limit, or mass emission typically unknown. Method 18, which environmental impacts, and energy limit. In some instances, adoption of an measures specific, known compounds, requirements. emission standard may be feasible for will not yield accurate results unless it certain sources within a category or can be used to determine the percent C. Why is the EPA Proposing to Include subcategory and not for other sources reduction of known compounds across Today’s Standards in the Generic MACT within the same category or the device. Conversely, Method 25 Standards? subcategory. In such cases, we may measures total non-methane organic We are proposing NESHAP for the adopt both an emission standard and an compounds and can be used to Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, alternative equipment, design, work determine percent reduction across the Carbon Black Production, Ethylene practice, or operational standard, but combustion device regardless of how Production, and Spandex Production only one type of standard will apply to the combustion process affects the inlet source categories under the generic a given source depending on the nature and outlet streams. Under certain MACT standards to reduce the and configuration of that source. conditions (i.e., controlled emissions regulatory burden associated with the Because today’s proposed standards concentrations less than 50 parts per development of separate rulemakings. reference several other subparts to million by volume (ppmv)), Method An owner or operator should consult control emissions, the format of the 25A may be used in lieu of Method 25 the generic MACT standards for standards (i.e., emission standard or for determining the reduction across a information on applicability of the work practice) for each emission type is combustion device. standards to their source, compliance that of the subparts which are In demonstrating compliance with the schedules, and standards. The generic referenced. We developed the formats of outlet concentration standard, you may MACT standards generally refer the the standards proposed today based on use Method 18 or Method 25A. If

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76411

Method 18 is used, the resulting associated with headaches, nausea, and devices, sampling connection systems, concentration must be reported as the weakness. There are also several studies open-ended valves or lines, valves, compound or compounds measured; that indicate a statistically significant connectors, and instrumentation however, if Method 25A is used, the increase in the incidence of lung cancer systems; and control devices. concentration must be reported as of workers with chronic inhalation We have identified four distinct carbon. exposure to acrylonitrile. processes used to produce cyanide Acetonitrile. Acute inhalation chemicals. Therefore, the definition of II. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing exposure of humans to acetonitrile in affected source for cyanide chemicals A. Introduction concentrations up to 500 ppmv can manufacturing specifies that a cyanide cause irritation of mucous membranes, chemicals manufacturing process unit 1. What Are the Primary Sources of may be any one of the following: an Emissions and What Are the Emissions? and higher concentrations have been associated with weakness, nausea, Andrussow process unit, a BMA process We have identified the following HAP convulsions and death. Chronic unit, a sodium cyanide process unit, or emission sources at cyanide chemicals inhalation exposure to acetonitrile a Sohio HCN process unit. The manufacturing facilities: (1) Process results in cyanide poisoning from definitions of each of these types of vents, (2) storage vessels, (3) equipment metabolic release of cyanide after process units describes the process and leaks, (4) transfer operations, and (5) absorption. The major effects associated delineates where the process unit begins wastewater treatment operations. We with cyanide poisoning consist of and ends. estimate that HAP emissions from headaches, numbness, and tremors. The Andrussow and BMA process process vents and equipment leaks units begin with (and include) the raw account for more than 96 percent of the B. Summary of Proposed Standards for material storage tanks and end at the total HAP emissions from the source Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing point at which refined HCN enters a category. 1. What Is the Source Category To Be reactor in a downstream process or is We estimate nationwide HAP Regulated? shipped offsite. emissions from the cyanide chemicals A Sohio HCN process unit, in which manufacturing industry to be 239 Mg/yr The Cyanide Chemicals HCN is produced as a byproduct of (263 TPY). The predominant HAP Manufacturing source category includes acrylonitrile, begins at the point where emitted from this source category facilities that are engaged in the the HCN leaves the unit operation include cyanide compounds (hydrogen manufacture of HCN or sodium cyanide: where the HCN is separated from cyanide (HCN) and sodium cyanide), (1) By reaction of methane and ammonia acrylonitrile. This unit operation is acrylonitrile, and acetonitrile. over a catalyst (the Blausaure Methane often referred to as the ‘‘light ends Anlage (BMA) process), (2) by reaction column.’’ As with all the other HCN 2. What Are the Health Effects of methane and ammonia in the process units, the Sohio HCN process Associated With the HAP Emitted? presence of oxygen over a catalyst (the unit ends at the point at which refined In the following paragraphs, we Andrussow process), or (3) as a by- HCN enters a reactor in a downstream present a discussion of the effects of product of the acrylonitrile production process or is shipped offsite. inhalation exposure to cyanide process (the Sohio production process). The sodium cyanide process unit compounds, acrylonitrile, and The source category also includes begins just prior to the unit operation acetonitrile. facilities that manufacture sodium where refined HCN is reacted with Cyanide Compounds. Acute cyanide via the neutralization process, sodium hydroxide and ends at the point inhalation exposure to high sometimes referred to as the ‘‘wet just prior to where the solid sodium concentrations of cyanide compounds process,’’ in which HCN reacts with cyanide product is shipped offsite or can be rapidly lethal. Acute inhalation sodium hydroxide solution, usually in a enters a reactor in a downstream of HCN at lower concentrations can system that includes the evaporation of process. cause a variety of adverse health effects water and crystallization of the product. in humans, such as weakness, headache, 3. What Are the Emission Limits, 2. What Is the Affected Source? nausea, increased rate of respiration, Operating Limits, and Other Standards? and eye and skin irritation. Chronic For the Cyanide Chemicals We are proposing NESHAP that inhalation exposure to cyanide Manufacturing source category, the would regulate HAP emissions from compounds can result in effects on the affected source includes each cyanide process vents from continuous unit central nervous system, such as chemicals manufacturing process unit, operations, storage vessels storing HCN headaches, dizziness, numbness, along with associated wastewater product, transfer operations, tremor, and loss of visual acuity. Other streams and equipment, that is located wastewater, and equipment leaks (from chronic exposure effects in humans at a major source. A cyanide chemicals compressors, agitators, pressure relief include cardiovascular and respiratory manufacturing process unit is the devices, pumps, sampling connection effects, an enlarged thyroid gland, and equipment assembled and connected by systems, open-ended valves or lines, irritation to the eyes and skin. hard-piping or duct work that processes valves, connectors, and instrumentation Acrylonitrile. Acute inhalation raw materials to manufacture, store, and systems). We are proposing the same exposure of workers to acrylonitrile has transport a cyanide chemicals product. requirements for existing and new been associated with the occurrence of The proposed definition of ‘‘cyanide sources, except for wastewater. The low-grade anemia, cyanosis, chemicals manufacturing process unit’’ following are summaries of the leukocytosis, kidney irritation, mild also contains a list of equipment that is proposed requirements for each type of jaundice, and labored breathing. part of the process unit. This list emission point. Symptoms include mucous membrane includes reactors and associated unit a. Process Vents from Continuous irritation, headaches, dizziness, nausea, operations; associated recovery devices; Unit Operations. For process vents from apprehension and nervous irritability, feed, intermediate, and product storage continuous unit operations, we are muscle weakness, and convulsions. vessels; product transfer racks and proposing different standards for each of Chronic inhalation exposure of connected ducts and piping; pumps, the four types of cyanide chemicals workers to acrylonitrile has been compressors, agitators, pressure-relief manufacturing process units. For each

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76412 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules process unit type, we are proposing that process unit. We are proposing that controlled to reduce HAP emissions by overall HAP emissions from the process overall HAP emissions from wet-end 98 percent. vents within the process unit be process vents be reduced by 98 weight- 4. What Are the Testing and Initial and reduced by a specified amount. The percent or to a concentration of 20 Continuous Compliance Requirements? required emissions reductions would ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if depend on the type of process unit. The a combustion device is the control We are proposing testing and initial owner or operator would have the device and supplemental combustion and continuous compliance option of controlling some vents and not air is used to combust the emissions), or requirements that are, where others; or controlling all vents to by venting emissions to a flare. We are appropriate, based on procedures and different levels, as long as the overall proposing requirements that overall methods that we have previously process unit process vent HAP HAP emissions from dry-end process developed and used for emission point emissions standard is achieved. We are vents be reduced by 98 weight-percent. sources similar to those for which also proposing that owners or operators b. Storage Vessels. We are proposing standards are being proposed today. For may comply by reducing emissions of that HAP emissions from storage vessels example, we are proposing control HAP from each individual process vent that contain HCN be vented through a applicability determination procedures, to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected closed vent system to a flare or any performance tests, and test methods to to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion combination of control devices that determine whether a process vent device is the control device and reduces HAP emissions by 98 weight- stream is required to apply control supplemental combustion air is used to percent. devices and to demonstrate that the combust the emissions). The proposed c. Transfer Operations. We are allowed emission levels are achieved when controls are applied. The emissions reductions requirements are proposing requirements to control proposed requirements are dependent summarized below by type of cyanide emissions for each transfer rack that is chemicals manufacturing process. on the control device selected. used to load HCN into tank trucks or rail We are proposing control Andrussow and BMA HCN production cars by venting emissions through a process unit. Except during periods of applicability determination procedures closed vent system to a flare or any to measure process vent flow rate and startup, shutdown and malfunction, we combination of control devices that are proposing that HAP emissions from process vent HAP concentration reduces emissions of HCN by 98 weight- measurement. The proposed test process vents from Andrussow and percent. BMA HCN production process units be methods parallel what we have used for d. Equipment Leaks. We are reduced by 99 weight-percent or to a process vent organic HAP emission proposing requirements to control HCN concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to point sources in previous standards emissions through the implementation 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device (e.g., the Hazardous Organic NESHAP of a leak detection and repair (LDAR) is the control device and supplemental (HON)). For measuring vent stream flow program for equipment that contains or combustion air is used to combust the rate, we propose the use of Method 2, contacts HCN and operates 300 hours or emissions). 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, During periods of startup, shutdown more per year. appendix A. For measuring total vent or malfunction, we are proposing that We are proposing that an owner or stream HAP concentration to determine process vent HAP emissions be vented operator may comply with the rule by whether it is below a specified level, we through a closed vent system to a flare, complying with either 40 CFR part 63, propose the use of Method 18 of 40 CFR or reduced from each process vent by 98 subpart TT, National Emission part 60, appendix A. weight-percent or to a concentration of Standards for Equipment Leaks— Additionally, we are proposing to 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen Control Level 1; or 40 CFR part 63, require initial performance tests for all if a combustion device is the control subpart UU, National Emission control devices other than flares and device and supplemental combustion Standards for Equipment Leaks— certain boilers and process heaters used air is used to combust the emissions). Control Level 2. The provisions of these as control devices for HAP emissions Sohio HCN production process unit. subparts control emissions from from process vents. As with the HON, For process vents from Sohio HCN equipment leaks by work practices (e.g., we are not proposing a requirement to production process units, we are inspection for leaks, instrument perform an initial performance test for proposing that overall process vent HCN monitoring) and equipment boilers and process heaters larger than emissions from the process unit be specifications. Both of these subparts 44 megawatts (MW) (150 million British reduced by 98 weight-percent or to a require that you inspect equipment for thermal units per hour (Btu/hr)) because concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to leaks and repair detected leaks. they operate at high temperatures and 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device e. Wastewater. We are proposing residence times. Analysis shows that is the control device and supplemental control requirements for HAP emissions when vent streams are introduced into combustion air is used to combust the from process wastewater streams at new the flame zone of these boilers and emissions), or by venting emissions to a facilities where the process water process heaters, greater than 98 weight- flare. contains HAP that are discarded from a percent of organic HAP emissions are Sodium cyanide production process cyanide chemicals manufacturing reduced, or an outlet concentration of units (wet-end and dry-end process process unit. We are proposing that the 20 ppmv organic HAP is achieved. For vents). In the proposed rule, we define HAP emissions from the process flares, a percent reduction or outlet wet-end process vents as process vents wastewater must be suppressed while concentration measurement is not that originate from the reactor, the wastewater is being conveyed to a feasible. Therefore, we determined that crystallizer, or any other unit operation treatment device, and we are specifying a performance test is not necessary if the in the wet end of the sodium cyanide requirements for the controls to reduce control device is a boiler, a process process unit; and we define dry-end the HCN and acetonitrile concentration heater larger than 44 MW (150 million process vents as process vents in the process wastewater. We are Btu/hr), or a flare. For all other types of originating from the drum filter or any proposing that the treatment device control devices, the proposed NESHAP other unit operation in the dry end of achieve 95 percent removal of HAP, and require the owner or operator to conduct a sodium cyanide manufacturing that vents on the treatment device be a performance test to demonstrate that

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76413 the control device can achieve the achieved, such as the results of categories because it makes more sense required control level and to establish performance tests and design analyses. to have facilities subject to one rule operating parameters to be maintained For each test method that you use for a rather than two separate rules for to demonstrate continuous compliance. particular kind of emission point (e.g., different parts of their process. The proposed requirements for cyanide process vent), you must submit one The Cyanide Chemicals chemicals manufacturing list the complete test report. This notification Manufacturing source category includes parameters that can be monitored for must also include the specific range facilities that manufacture HCN using combustion devices. For other control established for each monitored devices, we require that an owner or parameter for each emission point for any of the following methods: The BMA operator establish site-specific demonstrating continuous compliance, production process, the Andrussow parameter ranges for monitoring and the rationale for why this range production process, and as a byproduct purposes through the Notification of indicates proper operation of the control of the Sohio HCN production process. Compliance Status report and operating device. The source category also includes permit. Parameters selected are required For periodic reports, we are proposing facilities that manufacture sodium to be good indicators of continuous that you report periods when the values cyanide via the neutralization process control device performance. of monitored parameters are outside the (or the ‘‘wet process’’). We defined the In addition to testing and monitoring ranges established in the Notification of source category to include these specific of emissions control equipment, we are Compliance Status report. For process production processes because these are also proposing that the closed vent vents, records of continuously the only processes we identified that system that routes emissions to control monitored parameters must be kept. For manufacture HCN and sodium cyanide equipment be initially and annually some emission source types, such as in the United States. tested for HAP emission leaks (i.e., storage vessels, equipment (e.g., valves, Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA gives us measurement greater than 500 ppmv). If pumps), and certain control devices the authority to ‘‘* * * distinguish a leak is detected, we would require that (e.g., flares), periodic inspections or among classes, types, and sizes of you eliminate the leak and monitor measurements are required instead of equipment (no later than 15 calendar continuous monitoring. Records that sources within a category * * *’’ when days after the leak is detected). such inspections or measurements were developing standards. Subcategories, or subsets of similar emission sources 5. What Are the Notification, performed must be kept, but results are within a source category, may be Recordkeeping, and Reporting included in your periodic report only if defined if technical differences in Requirements? there is problem. For example, for equipment associated with a cyanide emissions characteristics, processes, We are proposing notification, chemicals manufacturing process unit, control device applicability, or recordkeeping, and reporting inspections and/or leak detection opportunities for pollution prevention requirements in accordance with the monitoring records must be kept. exist within the source category (57 FR General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, However, the results of such monitoring 31576). Specific examples of these subpart A) and other previously must be submitted in the periodic report differences include the types of promulgated NESHAP for similar source only if a leak is detected. We are products, process equipment categories. We are proposing that owners or proposing that the owner or operator differences, the type and level of operators of cyanide chemicals submit these reports semiannually, emission controls, emissions sources, manufacturing affected sources submit unless monitored parameter values for a and any other factors that would impact the following four types of reports: (1) particular emission point are outside the a MACT standard. established range greater than a Initial Notification, (2) Notification of We did not identify differences in the specified percentage of the operating Compliance Status, (3) periodic reports, four cyanide chemicals manufacturing and (4) other reports. Records of time, or if a problem is found during periodic inspections or measurements, processes (the Andrussow process, the reported information and other BMA process, the Sohio HCN information necessary to document whereby quarterly reporting is required. Other proposed reporting production process, and the sodium compliance with the standards would requirements include reports to notify cyanide process) included in the source be required to be kept for 5 years. the regulatory authority before or after a category that we believe meet the Equipment design records would be specific event (e.g., if a process change criteria presented above for required to be kept for the life of the is made, requests for extension of repair subcategorization. All four processes equipment. emit cyanide chemicals (HCN and For the Initial Notification, we are period). sodium cyanide), acetonitrile, and/or proposing that you list the cyanide C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed acrylonitrile. In addition, facilities using chemicals manufacturing processes at Standards for Cyanide Chemicals each process type commonly utilize your facility, and which provisions may Manufacturing apply. The Initial Notification must also some form of combustion to reduce HAP state whether your facility can achieve 1. How Did EPA Select the Source emissions from point sources. compliance by the specified compliance Category? Furthermore, the type of cyanide date. You must submit this notification On February 12, 1998 (63 FR 7155), chemicals manufacturing process does within 1 year after the date of we combined the HCN production and not affect the ability of a facility to promulgation for existing sources, and sodium cyanide production source reduce fugitive HAP emissions. within 180 days before commencement categories into a new major source Therefore, because these processes have of construction or reconstruction of an category called Cyanide Chemicals similar emissions characteristics, affected source. Manufacturing. Some facilities produce control device applicability, and For the Notification of Compliance sodium cyanide and HCN in the same opportunities for pollution prevention, Status report, we are proposing that you process train (i.e., using the same or we determined that it was not necessary submit the information necessary to linked equipment); therefore, we to divide this source category into demonstrate that compliance has been decided to combine these two source subcategories.

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76414 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2. How Did EPA Select the Affected outside the unit for treatment and Acetone cyanohydrin and adiponitrile Source? discharge. In addition, some equipment production are subject to the HON (40 The affected source is the group of (i.e., pumps, valves, compressors, etc.) CFR part 63, subpart F). Therefore, we determined that the unit operations, equipment, and that is used to transport chemicals may affected source should end at the point emission points that are subject to the be located outside of the cyanide that the cyanide chemicals product is proposed NESHAP. The affected source chemicals manufacturing process unit. either shipped offsite or is used as a raw can be defined as narrowly as a single Therefore, we have proposed a material in a downstream process. This item of equipment or as broadly as all definition of the affected source to means that piping and associated equipment at the plant site that is used include each cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit and all equipment (pumps, valves, etc.) up to to manufacture the product that defines associated waste management units, the point where the cyanide chemicals the source category. A major factor that maintenance wastewater, and are used in the downstream process (i.e., we considered in selecting the affected equipment in HAP service. at the reactor) would be included in the source for the Cyanide Chemicals Cyanide chemicals production cyanide chemicals affected source. We Manufacturing source category was the process units are seldom ‘‘stand-alone’’ believe that this is necessary to ensure relationship between the affected source facilities. Rather, the production of that potential HAP emissions from this definition and the format of the cyanide chemicals is usually part of an equipment are covered by a 40 CFR part standards. integrated facility. Therefore, the point 63 subpart. The format of the standards for at which a cyanide chemicals As noted above, we believe that the process vents is a process-unit-wide manufacturing process unit begins and starting point of the affected source emission limit (i.e., specified percent ends is not always obvious. Because of needs to be defined for each type of emissions reductions from all process this, it is necessary to define the process. The Andrussow and BMA vents in the process unit). This provides boundaries of the affected source. processes are straightforward because an owner or operator the option of As discussed previously, four distinct raw materials are reacted to produce selecting the most cost-effective level of processes are included in the source HCN. Therefore, for these two processes, control for each individual process vent, category. The proposed rule specifies we defined the beginning of the affected as long as the overall emissions limit is that a cyanide chemicals manufacturing source as the point at which raw achieved. To accommodate this format, process unit can be either an materials are stored. it was necessary to define the affected Andrussow process unit, a BMA process In the Sohio HCN production process, source to include all process vents in a unit, a sodium cyanide process unit, or the primary product produced is process unit. a Sohio HCN production process unit. acrylonitrile, and HCN is manufactured The affected source also defines the The boundaries of the affected source as a byproduct. The acrylonitrile collection of equipment that you would are described in the definitions of the production process is covered under the evaluate to determine whether individual types of process units. We HON, although HCN emissions are not replacement of components at an determined that a common demarcation subject to control under the HON. existing affected source would qualify of the end point of the affected source Therefore, we needed to determine the as reconstruction. If we define the is appropriate for all four process types, point in the Sohio HCN production affected source narrowly, it could affect but the beginning point needs to be process where the Cyanide Chemicals whether some parts of a process unit defined separately for each type of Manufacturing source category begins. would be subject to new source or process unit. We considered including all parts of existing source requirements. Since we Cyanide chemicals product is either the Sohio production process that are proposing the same requirements for loaded into a tank truck or railcar, or is contained HCN. However, because the existing and new sources for cyanide used as a raw material in another Sohio production process is covered chemicals manufacturing emission process at the plant site or an adjacent under the HON, many of the streams points, the only implication for plant site. Other production processes containing HCN may already be narrowly defining the cyanide for which HCN may be used as a raw controlled to the HON level of control. chemicals manufacturing affected material include processes that produce Although HCN is not covered by the source would be when the source would acetone cyanohydrin (an intermediate of HON (i.e., HCN is not included in table have to comply with the standards. the methyl methacrylate production 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart F), the We are proposing the process unit process), adiponitrile, chelating agents, types of control devices (i.e., that manufactures cyanide chemicals as or cyanuric chloride. We considered combustion devices) utilized by Sohio the foundation for the affected source. including downstream production facilities to comply with the HON also We are proposing a definition of the process HCN emission points under the reduce HCN emissions. As a result, we cyanide chemicals manufacturing cyanide chemicals affected source. concluded that the burden of process unit as a collection of However, we determined that overlapping standards would not justify equipment, assembled and connected by production processes where HCN is the very small potential for additional hard-piping or duct work, that is used used as a raw material are covered, or HCN reductions. to process raw materials to manufacture, will be covered, by other 40 CFR part 63 We wanted to define a point so that store, and transport a cyanide chemicals subparts. For example, chelating agents there would be no overlap between a product. production will be covered by the HON affected source and a cyanide Of the five types of emission points at Miscellaneous Organic Chemical chemicals affected source. There is a facilities that manufacture cyanide Manufacturing NESHAP, scheduled for point in the Sohio production process chemicals (process vents, storage proposal in the summer of 2000. where the HCN is separated from the vessels, equipment leaks, transfer Cyanuric chloride is an intermediate acrylonitrile, typically in a unit operations, and wastewater), all except product and will be covered by either operation referred to as the ‘‘light ends wastewater are typically located within the Pesticide Active Ingredients column.’’ Therefore, we defined the a cyanide chemicals production process NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart beginning of the Sohio HCN production unit. Wastewater that is generated MMM) or the Miscellaneous Organic process unit as the point the HCN leaves within a process unit is often routed Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP. the unit operation where the HCN is

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76415 separated from the acrylonitrile. 3. How Did EPA Select the Basis and stream characteristics, or other elements Because of our concern about the Level of the Proposed NESHAP for that could affect the emission potential potential for overlapping requirements Existing and New Sources? of an emission point or the ability to affecting a Sohio production process We identified 16 facilities that reduce emissions from that emission unit, we are specifically requesting manufacture cyanide chemicals which point. We evaluated whether the comment on our proposed definition for we believe represent the entire industry different types of cyanide chemicals the cyanide chemicals manufacturing in the United States. For existing manufacturing processes should be affected source. sources, the CAA requires us to considered for each emission source establish emission standards that are at type. We concluded that for storage A primary raw material used in the vessels, equipment leaks, wastewater, least as stringent as ‘‘* *ensp;* the production of sodium cyanide is HCN. and transfer operations, the elements average emission limitation achieved by Hydrogen cyanide that is produced in that can affect the emission potential of the best performing five sources * * *’’ an Andrussow, BMA, or Sohio an emission point or the ability to for categories or subcategories with production process unit can be fed reduce emissions from the emission fewer than 30 sources. For new sources, directly into a process to make sodium point were not influenced by the type of emission standards ‘‘* * * shall not be cyanide. Therefore, it was necessary to process. For example, the ability to less stringent than the emission control delineate the boundaries between an control HCN emissions from a storage that is achieved in practice by the best vessel is not dependent on the type of HCN process unit and a sodium cyanide controlled similar source.’’ process unit. Most commonly, HCN is process. The term ‘‘average’’ is not defined in We did create groupings for process refined in the HCN process and then fed section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. We have into a reactor, where it is reacted with vents. Because of similarities in the the discretion within the statutory types of unit operations and types of sodium hydroxide to form sodium framework to set MACT floors at cyanide. Therefore, we defined the control devices being used in the appropriate levels, and we have Andrussow and BMA production beginning of the sodium cyanide interpreted the term ‘‘average’’ to mean processes, we grouped and analyzed process unit as the unit operation where the mean, median, mode, or some other these two processes together to refined HCN is reacted with sodium measure of central tendency (59 FR determine the MACT floor for process hydroxide. However, some facilities do 29196). vents. We did not include process vents not refine the HCN prior to reacting it We chose the median (the value in a from the Sohio HCN production process with sodium hydroxide. In these cases, set of measurements below and above in this group, primarily because of the raw HCN is usually sent to an absorber, which there are an equal number of differences in process operations and where it is absorbed into a sodium values, when the measurements are controls. Specifically, the Sohio HCN hydroxide solution to form sodium arranged in order of magnitude) as the production process vents typically have cyanide. Since the emission stream from measure of central tendency in this much lower emissions and are typically this absorber is comparable to the MACT floor analysis for existing controlled by using a flare, while emission stream from an absorber in a sources. We found that, for this source emissions from process vents in the HCN process, we considered this category, the arithmetic mean resulted Andrussow and BMA processes are absorber to be part of the HCN process in a level of control that was not somewhat higher and are typically unit, rather than part of the sodium representative of any actual control controlled by a boiler. technology. Using a median allowed us cyanide process unit. Therefore, in Process vents in the sodium cyanide to select a MACT floor that corresponds situations where raw HCN is reacted process were separated into wet-end directly to the level of control process vents and dry-end process vents with sodium hydroxide prior to being represented by a particular control refined, we clarified that the sodium to determine the MACT floor. We did device. Also, because the data set we this primarily because emissions from hydroxide process begins at the point used in our MACT floor analysis dry-end process vents are particulate that the aqueous sodium cyanide stream consists of data from only 16 facilities, cyanide chemicals (i.e., solid sodium leaves the unit operation where the we did not use a mode, which is more cyanide), rather than gaseous emissions. sodium cyanide is formed. appropriate for large data sets. Therefore, the types of controls used in Additionally, in order to define the We also considered whether to the dry end may be different from those point at which the sodium cyanide separate emission sources into groups used in the wet end. production process begins, we are by emission source type (e.g., tanks, As previously discussed, the Cyanide proposing definitions for raw HCN and process vents, fugitive emission sources) Chemicals Manufacturing source refined HCN. In the proposed NESHAP, based on equipment type, equipment category has fewer than 30 sources, so we have defined raw HCN as HCN that size, equipment contents, stream the MACT floor must be based on the has not been through the refining characteristics, or control device best performing five sources. We process and usually has an HCN applicability. Because of differences in determined the best performing cyanide chemicals manufacturing process units concentration less than 10 percent. We emissions characteristics and vent stream characteristics, we separated the for each emission source type: Process have also proposed a definition of emission points in the Cyanide vents (Andrussow/BMA process, Sohio refined HCN to mean the HCN that has Chemicals Manufacturing source HCN production process, wet-end been through the refining process and category by emission source type. We sodium cyanide process vents, and dry- usually contains an HCN concentration grouped the emission points into one of end sodium cyanide process vents), greater than 99 percent. We are the following: Process vents, storage storage vessels, transfer operations, specifically requesting comments on the vessels, wastewater streams, equipment equipment leaks, and wastewater. If proposed definitions for raw HCN and leaks, or transfer operations. data were not available for each refined HCN, as well as the point at In addition, we may make grouping emission source type at five or more which the sodium cyanide production decisions within each emission source facilities, we determined the MACT process begins. type based on equipment type, floor based on the number of facilities equipment size, equipment contents, for which data were available. The

VerDate 112000 19:58 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 06DEP2 76416 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules following paragraphs discuss the MACT or malfunction events for new and process vents. We had control efficiency floor analysis for each emission source existing process vents is a flare or a 98 data for both of these facilities. The type. weight-percent emission reduction. control efficiencies were 83 weight- a. Process Vents. We considered two To select the proposed MACT for percent based on a cyclonic dust basic measures of performance for process vents from the Andrussow/BMA collector and 98 weight-percent based determining the best performing process, we considered above-the-floor on a caustic scrubber, with the average sources. We considered a HAP emission options for existing and new sources. As emission reduction being 90 weight- factor, expressed as HAP emissions per previously discussed, we could not percent. Therefore, we determined that unit of production. We also considered identify the technical basis for the the MACT floor for existing sources is an overall process unit HAP emission differences in reported emissions 90 weight-percent and the MACT floor reduction, expressed as a percent HAP reductions for the combustion devices for new sources is 98 weight-percent. reduction. Emission factors were represented by the MACT floor. Thus, To select MACT for dry-end process calculated for each cyanide chemicals all of the combustion devices included vents at existing sources, we evaluated manufacturing process unit, but we in the MACT floor analysis were the impacts of the MACT floor for new rejected these factors for determining considered to be equivalent. Therefore, sources. We estimate that the the MACT floor because we could not we did not identify a control technology incremental cost effectiveness verify information on production rates, more stringent than the MACT floor for associated with raising the existing and the accuracy and bases of the process vents in the Andrussow or BMA source dry-end process vent emission emission rates were not always processes. We are proposing that MACT reduction requirement from 90 weight- apparent. We, therefore, used the for process vents from the Andrussow/ percent to 98 weight-percent is percent emission reduction across the BMA production process is the level of reasonable; therefore, we selected 98 process as the basis for ranking facilities control represented by the MACT floor weight-percent as MACT for existing within each process type because a (i.e., a 99 weight-percent emission sources. percent emission reduction is less reduction). We did not identify an option more Sodium cyanide (wet-end) process. sensitive to the mass emission rate and stringent than the MACT floor for new We had information for three sodium does not rely on production rate. This sources. Therefore, we are proposing cyanide facilities that have wet-end approach was selected to determine the that MACT for dry-end process vents at process vents. One facility had MACT floor levels of control for process new sources is the MACT floor. vents, and the proposed standard is uncontrolled process vents, and the Sohio HCN production process. There expressed as a required percent HAP other two facilities each had an are five facilities using the Sohio HCN emission reduction. emission reduction of 98 weight-percent The following discussion presents the based on the use of combustion devices production process that were results of our MACT floor analysis for and a median emission reduction of 98 considered in the MACT floor analysis. process vents for each type of cyanide weight-percent. Therefore, we Of these five facilities, we have control chemicals manufacturing process. determined that the MACT floor for new efficiency data for four facilities. The Andrussow/BMA process. In our and existing sources is 98 weight- emission reduction ranges from 97.8 to MACT floor analysis, we considered percent based on the use of a 98 weight-percent. The median nine facilities that use the Andrussow or combustion device. emission reduction for facilities for BMA process. All nine facilities To select MACT for wet-end process which there is available data is 98 reported that they use combustion to vents, we considered the impacts of weight-percent. Therefore, we control HAP emissions from process above-the-floor options for existing and determined that the MACT floor for new vents. Of these nine facilities, we had new sources. As shown above, two of and existing sources is 98 weight- control efficiency data for seven the three sodium cyanide facilities percent. facilities. The emission reduction for all included in the MACT floor analysis are To select MACT for process vents of the five best performing facilities is controlled, and we believe that the from the Sohio HCN production 99 weight-percent or greater. Therefore, incremental costs (and the associated process, we considered the impacts of we concluded that the MACT floor for cost effectiveness) of achieving a small above-the-floor options for existing and existing sources is 99 weight-percent. emission reduction greater than 98 new sources. Several of the facilities To determine the MACT floor for new weight-percent would be included in the MACT floor analysis are sources, we attempted to determine the disproportional to the additional HAP controlled, and we believe that the best performing source. We evaluated emission reduction that would be incremental costs (and the associated the reported control efficiencies for the achieved (i.e., it would not be cost incremental cost effectiveness) of five best performing sources in this effective to require a facility to remove achieving a small emission reduction group. All of the sources apply some an existing combustion device and greater than 98 weight-percent would be form of combustion; however, we were replace it with one that gets an disproportional to the additional HAP unable to identify any technical basis additional 1 percent emission emission reduction that would be for the reported differences in control reduction). As a result, we did not achieved (i.e., it would not be cost efficiencies for these combustion perform an analysis of above-the-floor effective to require a facility to remove devices. Therefore, we selected the control technologies for wet-end process an existing combustion device and MACT floor for new sources as 99 vents at sodium cyanide production replace it with one that gets an weight-percent. facilities. Therefore, we are proposing additional 1 percent emission All of the five best performing sources that MACT for process vents in the wet reduction). As a result, we did not controlled emissions during startup, end of sodium cyanide production perform an analysis of above-the-floor shutdown, or malfunction events using facilities for existing and new sources is control technologies for process vents at a flare. In general, we assume that a a 98 weight-percent emission reduction Sohio HCN production facilities. properly operated flare will achieve an (i.e., the MACT floor). Therefore, we are proposing that MACT emission reduction of 98 weight- Sodium cyanide (dry-end) process. for process vents in Sohio HCN percent. Therefore, we determined that Information was available for two production facilities for existing and the MACT floor for startup, shutdown, sodium cyanide facilities with dry-end new sources is the MACT floor.

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76417

Alternative standards and compliance For vent streams controlled by a flare, For storage vessels controlled by options (all process vents). Many of the we selected a form consisting of venting emissions to a flare, we have facilities for which we have data control equipment and operating specifications, selected a form consisting of equipment every process vent to a degree that consistent with the form for flare and operating specifications, consistent would meet the proposed level of requirements that we have specified for with the format for flare requirements control. Clearly, the overall reduction other industries. This is because it is that we have specified for other would comply with the required very difficult to measure the emissions industries. This is because it is very reduction if each vent was achieving the from a flare to determine its efficiency. difficult to measure the emissions from required emission reduction. In this b. Storage Tanks. Information was a flare to determine its efficiency. situation, we did not believe that available for HCN storage vessels at c. Equipment Leaks. We have owners or operators needed to calculate eight facilities. The HCN storage vessels information regarding equipment leak a process-unit-wide emission reduction. are controlled at all eight facilities: Five emission control programs for ten Therefore, we added the option that with a flare as the primary control facilities. Four of these facilities are each process vent could be controlled to device, which we assume achieves 98 subject to the equipment leaks NSPS in the required level. We believe that this weight-percent emission reduction; one 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. Six would reduce the burden of with a scrubber, which was reported to facilities are subject to State equipment demonstrating compliance for owners achieve an emission reduction of 98 leak requirements. To define the five and operators in this situation. weight-percent; one with a scrubber and best performing facilities, we compared In the preamble to the proposed New flare in series; and one with a gas the State rules to subpart VV and Source Performance Standards (NSPS) absorption column. We did not have concluded that subpart VV was either for Air Oxidation Unit Process (48 FR control efficiency data for the facility equivalent to, or more stringent than, 48932, October 21, 1983), we stated that with the scrubber and flare in series or the State rules. Therefore, the median 20 ppmv is the lowest outlet for the facility with the gas absorption facility was determined to be a facility concentration achievable by combustion column; therefore, these facilities were subject to subpart VV. Thus, we of low concentration streams (i.e., not considered in the MACT floor determined that the MACT floor for new streams with concentrations less than analysis for storage vessels. The and existing equipment leaks is subpart around 2,000 ppmv). In addition, we remaining facilities were ranked by VV. We identified one alternative that is expanded the application of this lower emission reduction, and the five best more stringent than the MACT floor for bound concentration performance performing facilities were determined to equipment leaks. The equipment leak standard to control/recovery devices be those with the highest percentage provisions in the HON are more emission reduction. The emission other than incinerators (61 FR 43698, stringent than the subpart VV level of reduction associated with all of the top August 26, 1996) controlling volatile control. The level of control in subpart five facilities was 98 weight-percent. organic compounds. Therefore, for all VV is equivalent to the Generic MACT instances where the selected level of Thus, we determined the MACT floor control level 1, which is contained in 40 control is a specified percent reduction, for new and existing storage vessels to CFR part 63, subpart TT. The HON level we are proposing an alternative that be an emission reduction of 98 weight- of control is equivalent to the Generic would allow compliance by achieving percent through the use of a flare or MACT control level 2, which is an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv other control device. contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a To select the proposed MACT for UU. combustion device is the control device storage vessels, we did not identify any The basic elements of both the level and supplemental combustion air is control technologies more stringent than 1 and level 2 equipment leak programs used to combust the emissions) for each the MACT floor that would be are the same; however, level 2 requires individual emission point (i.e., this applicable. Although combustion connector monitoring and has a option is not allowed if you are technologies exist that could achieve an significantly lower leak definition. Due complying with a process-unit-wide emission reduction higher than the to the wide range of compliance options process vent requirement). We believe MACT floor level of 98 weight-percent, and performance-based incentives that that 20 ppmv is a reasonable level we believe that due to the intermittent reduce the monitoring frequencies, it is achievable for low-concentration nature of storage vessel emissions, flares difficult to assess the incremental streams. The exceptions to this are the are the most appropriate combustion difference in costs between these two requirements for sodium cyanide dry- control technology available for this levels of control. In addition, due to the end process vents. Since the emissions emission source type. Thus, we did not highly lethal nature of HCN, cyanide from these dry-end vents are particulate, perform an above-the-floor analysis for chemicals manufacturing process units the rationale for the 20 ppmv alternative storage vessels. Therefore, we are are much more rigorously maintained is not applicable. proposing that MACT for storage vessels than process units producing other, less Forms of the standards (all process for existing and new sources is the level lethal chemicals. Because of these vents). The proposed standards for of control represented by the MACT factors, we do not believe that the process vents include a combination of floor. additional emission reduction would forms. For process vent streams The proposed storage vessel justify the costs associated with controlled by control devices other than provisions include a combination of requiring a cyanide manufacturing a flare, we selected the form of a forms. For storage vessels that contain facility to comply with the HON numerical emission limitation (a HCN that are controlled by a control program. Therefore, we concluded that weight-percent reduction or a device other than a flare, we are it is not appropriate to require that concentration), either on an individual proposing an emission limitation in the existing and new sources comply with vent basis, or process-wide. This form form of a specified weight-percent 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. was chosen based on the controls used requirement. We selected this form to However, we recognize that many at cyanide chemicals manufacturing give owners and operators the flexibility cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities and the data available for our to install an applicable control process units are collocated with HON MACT analysis. technology to meet the MACT floor. facilities. In fact, HCN produced in a

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76418 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Sohio HCN production process is through the use of a flare or other settling, neutralization, clarification, actually a byproduct of a HON process. device. and in some cases, biodegradation (most For the sake of consistency, some To select the proposed MACT for commonly found at facilities with owners or operators of cyanide transfer operations, we did not identify NPDES permits). All of these chemicals manufacturing process units any control technologies more stringent wastewater treatment tanks are open to may prefer to comply with the HON than the MACT floor that would be the atmosphere. equipment leak program. Therefore, we applicable. Although combustion The wastewater generated from these are proposing the option of complying technologies exist that could achieve an cyanide chemicals manufacturing with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT emission reduction higher than the facilities tends to enter a collection or UU. MACT floor level of 98 weight-percent, system (typically a sewer) through The form of the provisions for we believe that the intermittent nature drains, sumps, trenches, and hotwells in equipment leaks consists of work of transfer operation emissions make the process area. The collection system practice and equipment specifications. flares the most appropriate combustion carries the wastewater from the process We have determined that it is not control technology for this emission down to the wastewater treatment feasible to prescribe or enforce emission source type. Thus, we did not perform system. Our information on these standards because emissions cannot be an above-the-floor analysis for transfer cyanide manufacturing facilities does emitted through a conveyance device, operations. Therefore, we are proposing not indicate that there are controls in and the application of a measurement that MACT for transfer operations for place to suppress HAP emission losses methodology is not practicable due to existing and new sources is the level of from the wastewater en route to the technological or economic limitations control represented by the MACT floor. wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, (57 FR 62608). The proposed standards for transfer the collection and drain system design operations include a combination of We considered whether it is is presumed to be typical of that found forms. For transfer racks that are used to appropriate to require owners and in other SOCMI facilities, in which load HCN into tank trucks and rail cars operators to monitor all equipment these HAP emissions vent to the that are controlled by control devices components (i.e., connectors, flanges, atmosphere through conveyance points other than a flare, we are proposing an valves). We concluded that there could such as junction boxes, man holes, and emission limitation in the form of a be situations where the costs of lift stations. The tanks in the wastewater specified weight-percent requirement. monitoring equipment with very low treatment plant are open to the This form was chosen based on controls atmosphere, where further HAP losses HAP emission potential are not used at cyanide chemicals occur through a combination of reasonable. Therefore, we are proposing manufacturing facilities and the data evaporation and mechanical agitation. an applicability cutoff for equipment available for our MACT analysis. We Six of these seven facilities report that components based on the amount of selected this form to give owners and they have a biological treatment tank or time the equipment contains or contacts operators the flexibility to implement an open pond. HAP. We are proposing an applicability applicable control technology to meet We are aware that biological treatment cutoff of 300 hours per year. We the MACT floor. units at SOCMI facilities are capable of selected this cutoff based on what has For transfer racks controlled by a achieving HAP emissions reductions. been adopted under previously flare, we selected a form consisting of However, the biological treatment units promulgated NESHAP for equipment equipment and operating specifications, at these cyanide manufacturing facilities containing or contacting organic HAP consistent with the form for flare were installed to meet requirements (i.e., the HON) because we had requirements that we have specified for associated with discharge of the insufficient data on equipment leak other industries and emission points. effluent. These units were not designed emissions and control at cyanide This is because it is very difficult to for the purpose of reducing HAP manufacturing facilities. measure the emissions from a flare to emissions to the ambient air, and we We are proposing to exempt open determine its efficiency. believe that any associated reductions of ended lines that contain HCN or e. Wastewater Treatment Operations. air emissions are insignificant. For this acrylonitrile from the requirements of Wastewater is generated from the component of the wastewater treatment 40 CFR part 63, subparts TT and UU. Andrussow and BMA cyanide system to achieve significant reductions According to industry representatives, manufacturing processes. We had in air emissions, the wastewater in the closing open ended lines that contain or information available on the wastewater drain and conveyance systems, both contact HCN or acrylonitrile could handling practices for seven facilities in within the process and going down to potentially lead to trapped volumes of the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing the wastewater treatment system, must these chemicals, which could source category. All seven of these be designed such that HAP emissions polymerize and raise significant safety facilities have wastewater treatment are suppressed so that they can reach concerns. units in place at their facility necessary the biological treatment system. In d. Transfer Operations. We have to meet either their National Pollutant addition, the tanks in the wastewater information for HCN transfer operations Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) system prior to the biotreatment tank at three cyanide chemicals facilities. permit requirements if they are allowed must also employ suppression controls. Two of these facilities control emissions to discharge directly to a body of Site specific variability in from transfer operations using a flare. navigable water, or to meet the performance of biotreatment tanks is The third facility routes HCN emissions requirements for discharging to a significant. Although all of these from transfer operations to a vent publicly owned treatment works facility facilities report a high level of removal scrubber with a flare as a backup. The if they have an indirect discharge of known HAP across their wastewater emission reduction for all three of these permit. Therefore, the median of the top treatment systems, how much of the facilities with transfer operations is five facilities has a wastewater treatment HAP that are actually destroyed, as reported to be 98 weight-percent. Thus, system in place to meet permitted opposed to stripped to the air, is we determined the MACT floor for new effluent discharge limits. These unknown. The degree that HAP removal and existing transfer operations to be an wastewater treatment systems are occurs through biological destruction is emission reduction of 98 weight-percent comprised of a series of tanks used for a function of many factors, including

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76419 the aeration rate, the biomass, the appropriate control technology beyond- category (e.g., HAP concentration cutoff retention time in the tank, the biological the-floor for existing sources. Since level, above which, control is required). degradation rate, and surface area. As these cyanide manufacturing processes We selected emission point and/or noted in the promulgation preamble to are similar to other SOCMI type control device-specific monitoring the HON, ‘‘* * * the variability in processes previously regulated under (including continuous monitoring), performance makes it difficult to other subparts, we evaluated what levels recordkeeping, and reporting quantify a required emission reduction of wastewater flow and HAP requirements included under common for the purpose of setting a standard. concentration were considered control requirement subparts Emission reductions for biological necessary to yield a reasonable cost promulgated for storage vessels (40 CFR treatment systems can only be effectiveness beyond-the-floor. Our part 63, subpart WW); equipment leaks determined on a site-specific basis available information on cyanide (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or TT); and * * *’’ (59 FR 19423). Moreover, given manufacturing wastewater indicates that closed vent systems, control devices, the site-specific nature of these systems, the flow rates and HAP concentrations recovery devices and routing to a fuel it would be difficult to develop even a fall well below applicability cutoffs gas system or a process (40 CFR part 63, qualitative work practice standard based established under these previously subpart SS). These subparts contain a on the median of the top five of these issued subparts. For that reason, we common set of monitoring, facilities that would both be achievable believe that the cost effectiveness of recordkeeping and reporting across the source category and going beyond-the-floor for existing requirements. We established these consistent with continued compliance cyanide manufacturing sources is not subparts to ensure consistency of the air with effluent discharge permits. For reasonable. emission requirements applied to these reasons, we have determined that We did not evaluate wastewater air similar emission points with pollutant the MACT floor for existing sources is emissions from sodium cyanide streams containing gaseous HAP. The no further control requirements for manufacturing wastewater. These rationale for the establishment of these wastewater beyond current practices. process units typically have some type subparts and requirements contained Two of the top five facilities report of water treatment that is part of the within each subpart is presented in the that they treat their process wastewater actual process unit. Vents from these proposal preamble for the source using stripping technology. One of these treatment processes are considered to be category requirements previously facilities sends their wastewater to a part of the wet end production unit promulgated under 40 CFR part 63, steam stripper, and the stripper effluent process vents and are regulated in the subpart YY (63 FR 55186–55191). then goes to their wastewater treatment process vent portion of this proposed We believe that the compliance, system. The other facility uses an air rule. We had no data indicating that the monitoring, recordkeeping, and stripper and sends the stripper effluent streams exiting these process units reporting requirements of subparts YY, to an ozonation step and then on to the contain any HAP except for sodium SS, TT, and UU are appropriate for wastewater treatment system. Both cyanide, which is not volatile. demonstrating and documenting facilities control the vents on the compliance with the requirements strippers by 98 percent through thermal 4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance, proposed for the Cyanide Chemicals oxidation. The steam stripper is Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Manufacturing source category. This is achieving 95 percent removal across the Reporting Requirements? because these requirements were stripper. The air stripping system We selected the monitoring, established for standards with similar reports similar performance, although form and similar emission points with steam stripper performance is better recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, pollutant streams of gaseous HAP for understood in terms of its ability to which we are requiring MACT remove HAP from wastewater and is subparts YY, SS, TT, UU, and WW to demonstrate and document compliance compliance demonstration and generally considered a more widely documentation under this proposal. applicable control technology for with the cyanide chemicals removing HAP from wastewater. manufacturing standards. The D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Therefore, we have identified steam procedures and methods set out in these Cost, and Economic Impacts? subparts are, where appropriate, based stripping achieving 95 percent HAP 1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? removal with 98 percent control of the on procedures and methods that we stripper vent to be the MACT floor for previously developed for use in Nationwide baseline HAP emissions new sources. We do not have any implementing standards for emission from the Cyanide Chemicals information that would aid us in setting point sources similar to those being Manufacturing source category are an applicability cutoff for wastewater proposed for the Cyanide Chemicals estimated to be 238 Mg/yr (263 TPY). streams based on flow rate and HAP Manufacturing source category. These proposed NESHAP will reduce concentration. We do have information General compliance, monitoring, HAP emissions by approximately 106 on the specifically-named wastewater recordkeeping, and reporting Mg/yr (117 TPY). This is a 45 percent streams being sent to the steam stripper. requirements that would apply across reduction from the baseline level for Therefore, the new source MACT floor source categories and affected emission this source category and a 58 percent also specifies the streams that must be points are contained within 40 CFR part reduction for those facilities required to controlled. 63, subpart YY (§§ 63.1108 through install controls to comply with the We are unaware of any technologies 63.1113). We specify the applicability proposed NESHAP. capable of performing at a higher assessment procedures necessary to We also estimate that the proposed control level than the steam stripping determine whether an emission point is NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals system representing the new source required to apply control. These Manufacturing source category will MACT floor. For this reason, we are not requirements are dependent on the reduce emissions of volatile organic going beyond-the-floor to set MACT for emission point for which control compounds (VOC) by 102 Mg/yr (113 new sources. We then considered applicability needs to be assessed and TPY). We estimate that the proposed whether this same stripping technology the form of the applicability cutoff NESHAP will result in an increase in with control of the stripper vent is an selected for an individual source sulfur oxide (SOX) emissions of 7.3 Mg/

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76420 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules yr (8 TPY), an increase in nitrogen oxide solid waste may result from replacement As with equipment leaks, our (NOX) emissions of 10.3 Mg/yr (11.4 of equipment such as seals, packing, evaluation of the potential for HAP TPY), an increase in carbon monoxide rupture disks, and other equipment emissions from storage vessels indicated (CO) emissions of 42.1 Mg/yr (46.4 components, such as pumps and valves. that they were not a significant source TPY), and an increase in particulate A minimal amount of solid or hazardous of emissions from carbon black matter (PM) emissions of 0.3 Mg/yr (0.3 waste could be generated from the use production facilities. This is because the TPY). The increases in emissions result of steam strippers to control wastewater typical feedstock oil used in the carbon from the on-site combustion of fossil emissions. The possible sources include black production process is heavy fuel fuels and emission streams as part of organic compounds recovered in the oil, which, because of its low vapor control device operations. steam stripper overheads condenser or pressure, is not likely to be emitted to 2. What Are the Cost and Economic solids removed during feed the atmosphere under normal operating Impacts? pretreatment. conditions. In addition, the feedstock oil The energy demands associated with is nearly solid under standard pressure The total estimated capital cost of the the control technologies for the and temperature and typically needs to proposed NESHAP for the Cyanide proposed NESHAP include the need for be heated to (and maintained at) 120 Chemicals Manufacturing source additional electricity, natural gas, and degrees Fahrenheit to allow it to flow as category is $939,000. The total fuel oil. The storage tank, transfer a liquid. estimated annual cost of the proposed operations, equipment leak, and In our evaluation of wastewater, we NESHAP is $2.4 million (fourth quarter wastewater controls are not expected to did not identify any wastewater 1998 dollars). require any additional energy. The total emissions of consequence as a result of We prepared an economic impact nationwide energy demands that would the carbon black production process. analysis to evaluate the impacts the result from implementing the process The process uses a quench tower to proposed NESHAP would have on the vent controls are approximately 3.1 x capture the product, and the effluent cyanide manufacturing market, 1014 Joules per year. guidelines applicable to this source consumers, and society. The total category require that there be no annualized social cost (in 1998 dollars) III. Carbon Black Production discharge of process wastewater to of the proposed NESHAP on the A. Introduction navigable waters from carbon black industry is $2.4 million, which is much production facilities. less than 0.001 percent of total baseline 1. What Are the Primary Sources of We estimate 1996 baseline HAP revenue for the affected sources. A Emissions and What Are the Emissions? screening analysis indicates that no emissions from the Carbon Black We evaluated the following potential individual firm affected by the proposed Production source category to be 7,000 HAP emission sources at carbon black NESHAP would experience costs in Mg/yr (7,700 TPY). This estimate facilities: (1) Process vents, (2) excess of 0.001 percent of sales. For this reflects emissions from process vents. equipment leaks, (3) storage vessels, and reason, we believe that the impact of the 2. What Are the Health Effects (4) wastewater. Based on available proposed NESHAP will be minimal. No Associated With the HAP Emitted? information, we have discerned that facility closures are expected as a result process vents from the main unit filter The principal HAP that we have of the proposed NESHAP. comprise most of the HAP emissions identified as being associated with 3. What Are the Nonair Health, from carbon black facilities. Process carbon black production facilities Environmental, and Energy Impacts? vent emissions consist of tailgas from include carbon disulfide, carbonyl We believe that there would not be the reactors. The reactor tailgas is sent sulfide, and hydrogen cyanide. In the significant adverse nonair health, to a baghouse where the carbon black is following paragraphs, we present a environmental, or energy impacts separated from the tailgas. The main discussion on the effects of inhalation associated with the proposed NESHAP unit filter is where the carbon black is exposure to these compounds. for the Cyanide Chemicals separated from the tailgas. After Carbon disulfide. Acute (short-term) Manufacturing source category. This is separation of the carbon black product, inhalation exposure of humans to supported by impacts analyses most of the tailgas is emitted to the carbon disulfide has caused changes in associated with the application of the atmosphere or sent to a combustion breathing and chest pains. Acute human control and recovery devices required control device. The process vents after inhalation exposure to carbon disulfide under the proposed NESHAP. We the main unit filter consist of vents from has also been associated with nausea, determine impacts relative to the unit operations involved in the vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, headache, baseline that is set at the level of control processing of the carbon black into final mood changes, lethargy, blurred vision, in absence of the standards. product. Hazardous air pollutant delirium, and convulsions. Control of equipment leaks will emissions may occur from process vents Chronic (long-term) carbon disulfide reduce the amount of HAP-containing after the main unit filter, but the amount human exposure and inhalation studies material that could be discharged to a of HAP emitted from these vents is very indicate the potential for adverse facility’s wastewater treatment stream small compared to the amount emitted neurologic effects. There is also a through equipment washdowns or from from process vents from the main unit potential for reproductive effects in stormwater runoff. The use of a scrubber filter. humans, such as decreased sperm count for HAP control from vents results in an In our evaluation of equipment leaks, and menstrual disturbances, that have effluent wastewater stream from the we found that leaks were not a had chronic inhalation exposure to scrubber that would add a small amount significant source of HAP emissions for carbon disulfide. Developmental effects, of wastewater to that already being the Carbon Black Production source including toxic effects to the embryo handled at the facility’s wastewater category. One of the reasons for this is and malformations and functional and treatment system. the low vapor pressures of the raw behavioral disturbances in offspring, There are minimal solid or hazardous materials used in the production have been observed in studies on waste impacts associated with the process (i.e., the typical carbon black laboratory animals with chronic proposed NESHAP. A small amount of feedstock is less than 0.05 kilopascals). inhalation exposure to carbon disulfide.

VerDate 112000 19:58 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76421

Carbonyl sulfide. Acute inhalation associated with the main unit filter, we the flame zone of these boilers and exposure to carbonyl sulfide in high are proposing requirements to control process heaters, greater than 98 weight- concentrations may cause narcotic HAP emissions by venting emissions percent of organic HAP emissions are effects in humans and may irritate eyes through a closed vent system to a flare, reduced, or an outlet concentration of and skin. No information is available on or by venting emissions through a 20 ppmv organic HAP is achieved. For the chronic effects of carbonyl sulfide in closed vent system to any combination flares, a percent reduction and outlet humans. of control devices that reduces concentration measurement is not Cyanide compounds. Acute emissions of HAP by 98 weight-percent. feasible. Therefore, we determined that inhalation exposure to high As an alternative to meeting a 98 a performance test is not necessary if the concentrations of cyanide compounds percent by weight HAP emission limit, control device is a boiler, a process can be rapidly lethal. Acute inhalation we are proposing that an owner or heater larger than 44 MW (150 million of hydrogen cyanide at lower operator may comply with the NESHAP Btu/hr), or a flare. We proposed concentrations can cause a variety of by reducing emissions of HAP from performance tests that ensure that a adverse health effects in humans, such their process vents from continuous unit control device can achieve the required as weakness, headache, nausea, operations to a concentration of 20 control level and help establish increased rate of respiration, and eye ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if operating parameters that are indicative and skin irritation. Chronic inhalation a combustion device is the control of proper operation and maintenance. exposure to cyanide compounds can device and supplemental combustion We are proposing that continuous result in effects on the central nervous air is used to combust the emissions). compliance with emission standards for system, such as headaches, dizziness, process vents be demonstrated by 4. What Are the Testing and Initial and monitoring control device operating numbness, tremor, and loss of visual Continuous Compliance Requirements? acuity. Other chronic inhalation parameters established during the exposure effects in humans include We are proposing testing and initial performance tests or specified in the cardiovascular and respiratory effects, and continuous compliance standards (as applicable). The proposed an enlarged thyroid gland, and irritation requirements that are, where requirements for carbon black to the eyes and skin. appropriate, based on procedures and production list the parameters that can methods that we have previously be monitored for the common types of B. Summary of Proposed Standards for developed and used for emission points combustion devices. For other control Carbon Black Production similar to those for which we are devices, we would require that an proposing standards with this action. 1. What Is the Source Category To Be owner or operator establish site-specific For example, we are proposing Regulated? parameter ranges for monitoring applicability determination procedures purposes through the Notification of We have defined the Carbon Black to determine whether a process vent Compliance Status report and operating Production source category to include stream is required to apply control, and permit. Parameters selected are required any facility that produces carbon black performance tests and test methods to to be good indicators of continuous by the furnace black process, thermal demonstrate that the emission limits are control device performance. black process, or the acetylene achieved when controls are applied. In addition to testing and monitoring decomposition process. The furnace The proposed requirements are of emissions control equipment, we are black process is a closed system dependent on the control device also proposing that the closed vent thermal-oxidative decomposition selected. system that routes emissions to control process, the thermal black process is a We are proposing control equipment be initially and annually cyclic thermal decomposition process, applicability determination procedures tested for HAP emissions leaks (i.e., a and the acetylene black process is a to measure process vent flow rate and measurement greater than 500 ppmv. If continuous thermal decomposition process vent HAP concentration. The a leak is detected, we would require that process. Carbon black is primarily used proposed test methods parallel what we you eliminate the leak and monitor as a reinforcing agent for rubber. The have used for process vent organic HAP equipment (no later than 15 calendar largest use of carbon black is in the emission point sources in previous days after the leak is detected). manufacture of automotive and truck standards. For measuring vent stream tires. flow rate, we propose the use of Method 5. What Are the Notification, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part Recordkeeping, and Reporting 2. What Is the Affected Source? 60, appendix A. For measuring total Requirements? We have defined the affected source vent stream HAP concentration to We are proposing notification, to include each carbon black production determine whether the vent stream HAP recordkeeping, and reporting process unit, along with associated concentration is below a specified level, requirements that parallel the General process vents and equipment that are we propose the use of Method 18 of 40 Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), located at a major source, as defined in CFR part 60, appendix A. and requirements to document section 112(a) of the CAA. We define a Additionally, we are proposing to compliance that are similar to those carbon black production process unit as require initial performance tests for all previously developed and used for the equipment assembled and control devices other than flares and similar emission points. connected by hard-piping or duct work certain boilers and process heaters used We are proposing that owners or to process raw materials used to as control devices for HAP emissions operators of carbon black production manufacture, store, and transport a from process vents. As with the HON, affected sources submit the following carbon black product. we are not proposing a requirement to four types of reports: (1) Initial perform an initial performance test for Notification, (2) Notification of 3. What Are the Emission Limits, boilers and process heaters larger than Compliance Status, (3) periodic reports, Operating Limits, and Other Standards? 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) because and (4) other reports. Records of For existing and new sources, we are they operate at high temperatures and reported information and other proposing the same requirements for residence times. Analysis shows that information necessary to document process vents. For process vents that are when vent streams are introduced into compliance with the proposed NESHAP

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76422 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules would be required to be kept for 5 years. C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed collection of equipment that you would Equipment design records would be Standards for Carbon Black Production evaluate to determine whether replacement of components at an required to be kept for the life of the 1. How Did EPA Select the Source existing affected source would qualify equipment. Category? as a reconstruction. If we define the For the Initial Notification, we are We listed Carbon Black Production as affected source narrowly, it could affect proposing that you list the carbon black a category of major sources of HAP on whether some parts of a process unit production processes at your facility June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197). We listed would be subject to new source and the provisions that may apply. The this category due to potential emissions requirements or existing source Initial Notification would also be of carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide, requirements. We are proposing the required to include a statement as to and hydrogen cyanide. When we same requirements for existing and new whether your facility can achieve originally listed the Carbon Black sources for carbon black production compliance by the specified compliance Production source category, we stated emission points. Therefore, the only date. This notification would be that it included facilities that implication for narrowly defining the required to be submitted within 1 year manufacture carbon black using the carbon black production affected source after the date of promulgation for channel, thermal, or furnace process (61 would be when the source would have existing sources, and within 180 days FR 28197). In gathering and evaluating to comply with the standards. before commencement of construction more extensive information on the We selected the process unit that or reconstruction of an affected source. production of carbon black, we manufactures carbon black as the determined that the furnace black foundation for the affected source. We For the Notification of Compliance process is the dominant production defined the carbon black production Status report, we are proposing that you process utilized in this source category. process unit as the collection of submit the information necessary to The other types of production processes equipment, assembled and connected by demonstrate that compliance has been we identified that are currently used in hard-piping or duct work, that is used achieved, such as the results of the United States to produce carbon to process raw material to manufacture performance tests and design analyses. black are the thermal, acetylene, and the carbon black product. We evaluated We provide information on the lampblack processes. Therefore, in our the potential HAP emission sources at requirements and information to be proposed definition of carbon black carbon black production facilities and provided to us for performance tests and production, we specify the furnace determined that most HAP emissions other methods of compliance black, thermal, acetylene, and occur from a single point. This point is determination for process vents and lampblack processes. the process vent from the main unit equipment. For each test method used The CAA allows us to define filter, which includes the ‘‘tailgas’’ from for a particular kind of emission point subcategories, or subsets of similar the reactor, along with miscellaneous (e.g., process vent), one complete test emission sources within a source streams from other unit operations. report would be required to be category, if technical differences in Based on the available information, emissions characteristics, processes, submitted. This notification would also we concluded that HAP emissions from control device applicability, or be required to include the specific range storage vessels, equipment leaks, and opportunities for pollution prevention wastewater were not significant. In fact, for each monitored parameter for each exist within the source category (57 FR no HAP emissions or HAP emission emission point for determining 31576). Specific examples of these controls were reported by industry for continuous compliance, and the differences include the types of storage vessels and wastewater at any rationale for why this range indicates products, process equipment carbon black facility. Therefore, we have proper operation of the control device. differences, the type and level of not included storage vessels and For periodic reports, we are proposing emission control, emissions sources, wastewater streams as part of the that you report periods when the values and any other factors that would impact affected source. of monitored parameters are outside the a MACT standard. We did not identify In summary, we are proposing that ranges established in the Notification of differences between the four carbon the affected source for carbon black Compliance Status report. For process black production processes included in production include each carbon vents, records of continuously the source category that we believe meet production process unit located at a monitored parameters must be kept. For the criteria presented above for major source, including all process equipment leaks, inspections and/or subcategorization. They all have the vents from the main unit filter, and leak detection monitoring records must same basic unit operations, HAP equipment (i.e., connectors, pumps, be kept. These records would only be emission sources, and ability to control valves) after the reactor that contains or required to be submitted in the periodic the HAP emissions. Thus, we contacts HAP that are associated with determined that it was not necessary to the carbon black production process report if a leak is detected. We are divide this source category into unit. proposing that these reports be subcategories. submitted semiannually, or quarterly if 3. How Did EPA Determine the Basis monitored parameter values for a 2. How Did EPA Select the Affected and Level of The Proposed NESHAP for particular emission point are outside the Source? Existing and New Sources? established range by a given percentage The affected source is the group of Eight companies operate 22 carbon of the operating time. unit operations, equipment, and black production facilities in the United Other reports that we are proposing to emission points that are subject to the States. For a source category with under require include reports to the regulatory proposed NESHAP. We can define the 30 sources, section 112(d)(3) of the CAA authority before or after a specific event affected source as narrowly as a single directs that the MACT floor for existing (e.g., if a process change is made, item of equipment or as broadly as all sources be based on the average requests for extension of repair period). equipment at the plant site that is used emission limitation achieved by the best to manufacture the carbon black performing five sources. The MACT product. The affected source defines the floor for new sources in a source

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76423 category is required to reflect the level difficult main unit filter process vent concentration streams (i.e., streams with of control being achieved by the best emission streams to control in the concentrations less than around 1,000 controlled similar source. The term Carbon Black Production source ppmv), a 98 weight-percent reduction ‘‘average’’ is not defined in the CAA. On category. may not be achievable for all process June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29196), we For process vents from the main unit vents from the main unit filter. announced our conclusion that filter, we were unable to identify a Therefore, we are proposing an Congress intended ‘‘average,’’ as used in method of control in practice that would alternative to the 98 weight-percent section 112(d)(3), to be the mean, achieve a greater level of HAP emissions reduction requirement for main unit median, mode, or some other measure of control than the MACT floor levels for filter process vents at existing and new central tendency. We also concluded existing sources. Therefore, we affected sources. This alternative that we retain substantial discretion determined that the MACT floor for new standard is a HAP or total organic within the statutory framework to set sources for process vents from the main compound (TOC) concentration limit of MACT floors at appropriate levels, and unit filter is the same as the MACT floor 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen that we construe the word ‘‘average’’ (as for existing sources (i.e., a 98-weight- if a combustion device is the control used in section 112(d)(3)) to authorize percent HAP emission reduction). device and supplemental combustion us to use any reasonable method, in a For process vents from the main unit air is used to combust the emissions), particular factual context, of filter, we estimated and evaluated the which we have determined is a determining the central tendency of a impacts of above-the-floor options for reasonable level achievable for low- data set. existing and new sources. We did not concentration streams. We chose the median as the measure identify a viable above-the-floor option In determining MACT for process of central tendency in our MACT floor for process vents from the main unit vents from the main unit filter, we also analysis for process vents and filter for existing or new sources. selected a control applicability cutoff for equipment after the reactor for existing Therefore, we are proposing that MACT existing and new sources, below which sources. We chose the median because for process vents from the main unit the vent would not be subject to control the arithmetic mean resulted in a level filter for existing and new sources is the requirements. We selected an of control that did not correspond to any level of control represented by the applicability cutoff for existing and new actual control technology. Using a MACT floor (i.e., a 98-percent HAP sources that represents the lowest inlet median allowed us to select a MACT emission reduction). concentration reported at one of the best floor level of control that corresponds to In our evaluation of control options controlled facilities. The proposed the level of control represented by an for carbon black facilities for process cutoff is 260 ppmv. existing control device. Additionally, vents after the main unit filter, we The standards that we are proposing since our MACT floor analysis consisted determined that the MACT floor for for process vents from the main unit of data from only 22 facilities, choosing existing and new sources is no control. filter in the carbon black production the mode as the measure of central This floor level of control represents the source category have various forms. tendency did not make sense, since the five best performing facilities that These forms consist of a combination of mode is more appropriately used when achieved the highest level of emissions emission standards and equipment, there is a large data set. reductions and had the lowest reported design, work practice, and operational One decision that we must make is uncontrolled (inlet) total HAP requirements consistent with how to ‘‘group’’ emission sources in the concentrations (considering vent flow requirements promulgated for similar MACT floor analysis. We often separate rate) for process vents after the main emission points and emission emission sources into groups by unit filter. Four of the five facilities did characteristics. For process vent streams emission source type (e.g., tanks, not indicate any air emissions control controlled by control devices other than process vents, fugitive emission after the main unit filter. One facility a flare, we selected the form of a sources). For the Carbon Black reported process modifications that numerical emission limitation (a Production source category, we reduce the residual HAP levels in the weight-percent reduction and a identified the process vent from the process after the main unit filter by 98 concentration). This form was chosen main unit filter as a group for purposes weight-percent. Since this facility’s based on the controls used at carbon of determining MACT. level of control does not correspond to black facilities and the data available for For process vents from the main unit a control type, we determined that the our MACT analysis. filter, we determined the MACT floor MACT floor for both existing and new For vent streams controlled by a flare, for existing sources to be a 98-weight- sources was no control. we selected a form consisting of percent HAP emission reduction. This We estimated and evaluated the equipment and operating specifications, floor level of control represents the five impacts of above-the-floor options for consistent with the form for flare best performing facilities that achieved process vents after the main unit filter. requirements that we have specified for the highest level of emissions We evaluated controlling process vents other industries. This is because it is reductions and had the lowest reported after the main unit filter to 98 weight- very difficult to measure the emissions uncontrolled (inlet) total HAP percent as an above-the-floor option. We from a flare to determine its efficiency. concentrations (considering vent flow determined that the cost effectiveness of rate) for the main unit filter process this option is unreasonable. Therefore, 4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance, vent. Since all combustion devices in we selected the MACT floor level of Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and our database achieve a 98-weight- control for process vents located after Reporting Requirements? percent HAP emission reduction, we the main unit filter process to be MACT We selected the monitoring, based the best controlled facilities on (i.e., no control). recordkeeping, and reporting those facilities that control the lowest In determining MACT for process requirements of 40 CFR part 63, inlet concentration streams (considering vents, we considered whether it was subparts SS, UU, and YY to demonstrate vent flow rate). We believe, based on appropriate to apply a 98 weight- and document compliance with the engineering judgement, that these low percent emission reduction requirement carbon black production standards. The uncontrolled (inlet) total HAP to all process vents from main unit procedures and methods set out in these concentrations represent the most filters. We determined that for low- subparts are, where appropriate, based

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76424 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules on procedures and methods that we D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, category. This is supported by impacts previously developed for use in Cost, and Economic Impacts analyses associated with the application of the control and recovery devices implementing standards for emission 1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? point sources similar to those being required under the proposed NESHAP. proposed for the Carbon Black For the Carbon Black Production We determine impacts relative to the Production source category. source category, we estimate that the baseline that is set at the level of control proposed NESHAP would reduce HAP in absence of the proposed NESHAP. General compliance, monitoring, emissions by 1830 Mg/yr (2,020 TPY). There are no water pollution and recordkeeping, and reporting This is a 26 percent reduction from the solid waste impacts from the use of air requirements that would apply across total baseline HAP emissions for this emission control devices in the Carbon source categories and affected emission source category and a 95 percent Black Production source category. An points are contained within 40 CFR part reduction for those facilities that would increase in energy consumption will 63, subpart YY (i.e., §§ 63.1108 through be required to install controls to meet result from the use of combustion 63.1113). We specify the applicability the standards. control systems. We estimate that the assessment procedures necessary to We estimate that the proposed Carbon Black Production source determine whether an emission point is NESHAP for the Carbon Black category will consume an additional 186 required to apply controls. These Production source category would million cubic feet of natural gas per year procedures are dependent on the reduce CO emissions by 474,000 Mg/yr to meet the regulatory requirements of emission point for which control (522,000 TPY), VOC by 16,900 Mg/yr the proposed NESHAP. This would applicability needs to be assessed and (18,600 TPY), hydrogen sulfide (H2S) by represent an increase in total domestic the form of the applicability cutoff 10,300 Mg/yr (11,300 TPY), and PM by natural gas consumption of less than 1/ selected for an individual source 740 Mg/yr (820 TPY). We estimate that 100th of one percent. the proposed NESHAP would increase category (e.g., a HAP concentration E. Solicitation of Comments SO emissions by 32,900 Mg/yr (36,200 cutoff level, above which control is X TPY) and NO by 1,140 Mg/yr (1,260 Representatives of the carbon black required). X TPY) as a result of on-site combustion industry have expressed concern with We selected monitoring (including of fossil fuels. However, the air quality requirements in the proposed NESHAP continuous monitoring), recordkeeping, benefits of the proposed NESHAP (i.e., to monitor for leaks from air stream and reporting requirements included reductions in HAP, CO, VOC, and H2S conveyance systems. Under 40 CFR part under common control requirement emissions) outweigh the negative 63, subpart SS, we are requiring facility subparts promulgated for equipment impacts associated with the anticipated owners/operators to monitor for HAP leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU), and increases in emissions of SOX and NOX. leaks from connectors and other closed vent systems, control devices, equipment involved in the conveyance 2. What Are the Cost and Economic of HAP containing air emission streams recovery devices and routing to a fuel Impacts? gas system or a process (40 CFR part 63, required to be controlled by the The total estimated capital cost of the proposed NESHAP. subpart SS). These subparts contain a Industry concern so far has centered common set of monitoring, proposed NESHAP for the Carbon Black Production source category is $54.9 around two issues: (1) That the large recordkeeping and reporting million. The total estimated annual cost amount of nitrogen in carbon black requirements. We established these of the proposed NESHAP is $10.6 facility air streams may provide false subparts to ensure consistency of the air million. These costs represent fourth positive readings; and (2) that EPA emission requirements applied to quarter 1998 dollars. Method 21 (the required test method) similar emission points with pollutant We prepared an economic impact may not detect the nonorganic HAP streams containing gaseous organic analysis to evaluate the impacts these present in the gas stream for a carbon HAP. The rationale for the proposed NESHAP would have on the black facility and, therefore, may not be establishment of these subparts and carbon black production market, an effective monitoring procedure. We requirements contained within each consumers, and society. The total are soliciting further industry comments subpart is presented in the proposal annualized social cost (in 1997 dollars) and data on these two issues in order to preamble for the source category of the proposed NESHAP to the industry more effectively address them in the requirements previously promulgated is $10.6 million, which is less than final NESHAP. under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY (63 0.001 percent of total baseline revenue Many carbon black production FR 55186–55191). for the affected sources. A screening facilities use flares to control HAP analysis suggests only one of the firms emissions. The flares used by the The compliance, monitoring, industry are commonly called hydrogen recordkeeping, and reporting affected by the proposed NESHAP would experience costs in excess of 1 flares due to the presence of large requirements of 40 CFR part 63, percent of sales, and no firm would amounts of hydrogen in emission subparts SS, UU, and YY, are experience costs in excess of 1.5 percent streams being controlled. On May 4, appropriate for demonstrating and of sales. For this reason, we believe the 1998, we published a direct final rule documenting compliance with the impact of the proposed NESHAP will be (63 FR 24436) to add operating requirements proposed for the Carbon minimal. We expect no facility closures requirements designed to ensure that a Black Production source category. This as a result of the proposed NESHAP. 98 weight-percent destruction of organic is because these requirements were HAP and VOC is achieved by hydrogen established for standards with similar 3. What Are the Nonair Health, flares. We are aware that some members forms and similar emission points, and Environmental, and Energy Impacts? of the carbon black industry use flare with pollutant streams of gaseous We believe that there would not be designs that differ from the flare type organic HAP for which we are requiring significant adverse nonair health, used to establish our current MACT compliance demonstration and environmental or energy impacts requirements for hydrogen flares. While documentation under this proposal. associated with the proposed NESHAP some industry flares may not meet our for the Carbon Black Production source current operating procedures, they

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76425 might meet the required 98 weight- caused various disorders in the blood, the separation of ethylene from percent level required by the proposed including reduced numbers of red blood associated streams such as product NESHAP. cells and aplastic anemia. Increased made from compounds composed of We are soliciting test data collected by incidence of leukemia (cancer of the four carbon atoms (C4), pyrolysis industry that would show that flare tissues that form white blood cells) has gasoline, and pyrolysis fuel oil. The types used by the carbon black industry been observed in workers exposed to ethylene production process does not achieve 98 weight-percent control. If we benzene. The EPA has classified include the manufacture of synthetic determine the data submitted to be benzene as a Group A, known human organic chemicals, such as the adequate, a revision to the hydrogen carcinogen. production of butadiene from the C4 flare requirements could be 1,3 butadiene. Acute inhalation of 1,3 stream and aromatics from pyrolysis promulgated. This revision potentially butadiene results in irritation of the gasoline. Propylene is often produced as would allow the use of certain flares eyes, nasal passages, throat, and lungs, a product during the ethylene meeting the required destruction and causes neurological effects such as production process, but the separation efficiency, yet operating outside of the blurred vision, fatigue, headache, and of propylene from a refinery gas stream parameters we established in the May 4, vertigo. Epidemiological studies have does not in itself cause the process unit 1998, Federal Register notice to be used reported a possible association between or the equipment used for the separation to meet the requirements of the chronic 1,3 butadiene exposure and to be included in this source category. proposed NESHAP. cardiovascular diseases. Animal studies In addition to ethylene and propylene, other products from an IV. Ethylene Production have reported the development of tumors following inhalation exposure to ethylene manufacturing process unit A. Introduction 1,3 butadiene. The EPA has classified (EMPU) may include, but are not limited to: (1) Hydrogen and methane 1. What Are the Primary Sources of 1,3 butadiene as a Group B2, probable containing streams, (2) ethane and Emissions and What Are the Emissions? human carcinogen. The effects of these HAP vary in propane streams, (3) mixed C4+ The following emission types (i.e., severity based on the level and length of pyrolysis products, (4) pyrolysis fuel oil, emission points) are the primary sources exposure and are influenced by source- and (5) specialty products such as of emissions being covered by the specific characteristics such as emission acetylene and methylacetylene- proposed NESHAP: Equipment rates and local meteorological propadiene. For purposes of discussion (including pumps, compressors, conditions. Health impacts are also in this preamble, the term ethylene will pressure relief devices, valves, and dependent on multiple factors that be used to describe the source category connectors); storage vessels; transfer affect human variability such as and the associated process unit racks; process vents; heat exchange genetics, age, health status (e.g., equipment even though other products, systems; and waste operations. We presence of pre-existing disease), and such as propylene, may be produced in address pyrolysis furnaces and decoking lifestyle. To the extent the adverse addition to and in greater or lesser operations, but there are no specific effects do occur, the proposed NESHAP quantities than ethylene. control requirements for these two will substantially reduce emissions and 2. What Is the Affected Source? emission types. exposures to the level achievable with We have defined the affected source A variety of HAP are emitted during MACT. The seriousness of risks to include each EMPU, along with the ethylene manufacturing process. remaining after impositions of the final associated process equipment The HAP emitted by the facilities MACT standards will be examined at a (including storage vessels, process covered by the proposed NESHAP later date, as provided for under section vents, transfer racks, waste streams, include benzene, 1,3 butadiene, toluene, 112(f) of the CAA. naphthalene, hexane, and xylene. The piping, and heat exchange systems) proposed standards regulate emissions B. Summary of Proposed Standards for located at a plant site that is a major of these compounds, as well as other Ethylene Production source as defined in section 112(a) of the CAA. The affected source does not incidental organic HAP that are emitted 1. What Is the Source Category To Be include associated equipment that does during the manufacture of ethylene. Regulated? not contain HAP, stormwater from 2. What Are the Health Effects There are 37 ethylene production segregated sewers, water from Associated With the HAP Emitted? plants operating in the United States. firefighting and deluge systems in The data available to us indicate that We estimate that 30 or more facilities segregated sewers, water from testing the primary HAP emitted by ethylene are major sources. The proposed deluge systems, water from safety manufacturing are benzene and 1,3 NESHAP apply to all major sources that showers, spills, storage vessels and butadiene. Emissions of benzene and 1,3 produce ethylene. Final determination transfer racks that contain organic HAP butadiene are more than 80 percent of of major source status occurs as part of as impurities, or vapor balancing the total HAP emissions from the the compliance determination process transfer equipment. We define EMPU as manufacture of ethylene/propylene. The undertaken by each individual source. a process unit specifically utilized for HAP that would be controlled with Area sources are not subject to the the production of ethylene/propylene today’s proposed NESHAP are proposed NESHAP. including all separation and purification associated with a variety of adverse The Ethylene Production source processes. The affected source does not health effects. category includes any facility which include pieces of equipment currently Benzene. Acute (short-term) exposure manufactures ethylene as a primary included in other source categories. to benzene in air can cause dizziness, product or an intermediate product. headaches, and unconsciousness. Ethylene is produced by either a 3. What Are the Emission Limits, Exposure to high levels of benzene can pyrolysis process (hydrocarbons Operating Limits, and Other Standards? result in death. Lower concentrations subjected to high temperatures in the The following discussion briefly may irritate the skin, eyes, and lungs. presence of steam) or by separation from summarizes the proposed control Chronic (long-term) exposure to a petroleum refining stream. The requirements for the affected emission benzene in occupational settings has ethylene production process includes types.

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76426 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

a. Equipment leaks. The equipment emissions by 95 weight-percent. As discussed later in this preamble, leak emission type represents emissions Requirements are the same for both the requirements for waste operations from specific components within the existing and new sources. are based on the BWON. The BWON ethylene manufacturing process. These d. Transfer Racks. For transfer racks includes three compliance options in components include pumps, loading 76 cubic meters (20,000 gallons) addition to the standard requirements. compressors, pressure relief devices, gas or more per day of HAP-containing These compliance options are not valves, light liquid valves, heavy liquid material (averaged over any consecutive included in the requirements for valves, and connectors. For equipment 30-day period) and having a vapor ethylene production sources. The containing or contacting HAP in pressure greater than or equal to 3.4 BWON compliance options set limits amounts of 5 percent or greater, HAP kilopascals (0.5 psia), HAP emissions based on a total annual benzene (TAB) emissions are required to be controlled are required to be controlled by quantity. Because the requirements for through the implementation of LDAR equipping the transfer rack with one of ethylene production sources are for program for affected equipment. the following: (1) A closed vent system controlling HAP emissions, Monitoring frequency is based on the designed to collect the regulated requirements including a TAB quantity percent of leaking equipment. material displaced during loading and would not be appropriate. We do not Requirements are the same for both route it to a flare or other control device have adequate data to convert the TAB existing and new sources. that reduces HAP emissions by 98 limits into HAP emission limits. b. Process vents. For process vents weight-percent or to a concentration of Additionally, calculation of such a from continuous unit operations having 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen quantity is a complicated and time- an average flow rate greater than or if a combustion device is the control consuming process. In complying with equal to 0.008 standard cubic meters per device and supplemental combustion the BWON, a TAB quantity is calculated minute (scmm) and an average HAP air is used to combust the emissions), or regardless of the compliance option concentration of 30 ppmv or greater, (2) process piping designed to collect selected because a TAB quantity is used HAP emissions are required to be the regulated material displaced during to determine overall applicability of the controlled by routing emissions through loading and route it to a process, a fuel BWON. No such quantity is needed for a closed vent system to one of the gas system, or a vapor balance system. the ethylene production waste following: (1) A flare, or (2) an enclosed Requirements are the same for both requirements because they apply to all combustion device that reduces HAP existing and new sources. ethylene production sources located at emissions by 98 weight-percent or to a e. Heat Exchange Systems. The HAP major sources. Excluding the concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to emissions from heat exchange systems compliance options simplifies the 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device occur when a leak in a heat exchanger requirements for ethylene production is the control device and supplemental allows HAP to be introduced to the sources by not requiring a TAB or a combustion air is used to combust the cooling water and released when the HAP-based quantity to be calculated. emissions). Recovery devices can be cooling water is exposed to the used in certain situations to meet the 98 atmosphere. The HAP emissions are 4. What Are the Testing, Monitoring, weight-percent reduction or 20 ppmv required to be controlled by Inspection, Recordkeeping and requirement. Requirements are the same implementing procedures to monitor Reporting Requirements? for both existing and new sources. cooling water and repair equipment The testing, monitoring, inspection, c. Storage Vessels. For storage vessels upon detection of a leak. Cooling water recordkeeping, and reporting storing liquid containing HAP and is monitored monthly for heat exchange requirements specified in the proposed having a vapor pressure greater than or systems at existing sources and weekly NESHAP are used to assure and equal to 3.4 kilopascals (0.5 pounds per for heat exchange systems at new document compliance with the square inch absolute (psia)) but less sources. standards. The testing, monitoring, than 76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia), f. Waste Operations. To control inspection, recordkeeping, and requirements are based on capacity. For emissions from waste streams, HAP in reporting requirements included in the storage vessels with capacity greater the stream must be reduced by 99 proposed NESHAP are based on such than 4 cubic meters (1,000 gallons) but weight-percent or to 10 ppmv. The HAP requirements that we previously less than 95 cubic meters (25,000 reduction of 99 weight-percent must be developed for sources similar to those gallons), HAP emissions are required to achieved using suppression followed by for which standards are being proposed be controlled by filling the vessel steam stripping, biotreatment, or other today. The testing, monitoring, through a submerged pipe or by treatment processes. Vents from steam inspection, recordkeeping, and complying with the requirements for strippers and other waste management reporting requirements for each storage vessels with capacities greater or treatment units are required to be emission type are based on those in the than or equal to 95 cubic meters (25,000 controlled by a control device achieving Petroleum Refineries NESHAP, the gallons). For storage vessels with 98 weight-percent emission reduction or BWON, the HON, and/or other rules as capacity of 95 cubic meters (25,000 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen appropriate. These testing, monitoring, gallons) or more, HAP emissions are if a combustion device is the control inspection, recordkeeping, and required to be controlled by equipping device and supplemental combustion reporting requirements are the same as the vessel with an internal floating roof air is used to combust the emissions) at the generic standards for storage vessels or external floating roof with seals and the outlet of the control device. The (40 CFR part 63, subpart WW); controlled fittings or by routing term ‘‘waste’’ includes wastewater equipment leaks (40 CFR part 63, emissions through a closed vent system streams. This term is used because the subparts TT and UU); and process vents to a flare, a fuel gas system or process, proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart XX, (40 CFR part 63, subpart SS). or a control device that reduces HAP references the Benzene Waste As discussed later in this preamble, emissions by 95 weight-percent. Vessels Operations NESHAP (BWON) for the proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart storing materials with vapor pressures controlling emissions from wastes XX, specifies that monitoring of HAP of 11 psia or greater must be equipped (including wastewater). Requirements concentration in waste streams after with a closed vent system routed to a are the same for both existing and new treatment or process parameters that flare or control device that reduces HAP sources. indicate proper operation of treatment

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76427 systems must be conducted facility’s startup, shutdown, and C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed continuously. Facilities that currently malfunction plan will require owners Standards for Ethylene Production perform concentration monitoring of and operators of an EMPU to include 1. How Did EPA Select the Source waste streams do so on a monthly basis procedures for decoking that will Category? as required by the BWON. We do not minimize emissions. By including believe that monthly concentration decoking as a shutdown activity, owners In the early listing of source monitoring is sufficient to ensure and operators will be afforded flexibility categories, we intended to regulate continuous compliance. Rules in addressing decoking emissions while ethylene processes with the SOCMI. We developed under section 112 of the CAA ensuring that they will be minimized. did not do this because we had include monitoring strategies that insufficient data to support that incorporate the concepts of enhanced 6. How Are the Proposed NESHAP ethylene processes and SOCMI monitoring that were established in Related to Other Rules? processes were similar sources for section 114(a)(3) of the CAA. This MACT determination. The ethylene We recognize that the potential exists approach is designed to ensure that processes were, therefore, specifically for regulatory overlap between the monitoring procedures developed for not covered by NESHAP for the SOCMI section 112 standards provide data that proposed NESHAP and other rules source category (HON). Consequently, can be used to determine compliance previously developed under the CAA. we listed ethylene processes as a with applicable standards, including Therefore, we have clarified the separate category of major sources of emission standards on a continual basis. applicability of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HAP on June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197). Since the waste requirements of the YY, as it relates to other 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 rules that apply to 2. How Did EPA Select the Affected proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart XX, Source? primarily refer to provisions in 40 CFR ethylene production sources in the part 61, subpart FF, that were developed general applicability section of the We determined the affected source by prior to the CAA Amendments, the proposed NESHAP (§ 63.1100). Areas of first recognizing that ethylene provisions do not ensure that overlap may occur with other NESHAP manufacturing processes generally exist monitoring data are available to prove applicable to storage vessels, process as a follow-on chemical process to compliance on a continual basis in all vents, transfer operations, and petroleum refining and as a precursor to cases. Therefore, today’s proposal equipment leaks, such as 40 CFR part the production of other chemicals, most requires either continuous monitoring of 60, subparts Ka, Kb, VV, NNN, and RRR; of them SOCMI chemicals. Concerned HAP concentration of the waste stream 40 CFR part 61, subpart V; and 40 CFR about overlap, we considered the exiting the treatment process or part 63, subpart G. combination of equipment used in the manufacture of ethylene, and the continuous monitoring of process The requirements for equipment associated by-products and co-products, parameters for the waste treatment leaks, storage vessels, process vents, and as the subject of this proposal, from the process/unit that would indicate proper transfer racks are similar to the point at which feed stocks from refinery system operation. Facilities that comply requirements for these emission types processes are received by an EMPU to with the monitoring requirements of the under both the HON and the Petroleum the point where chemical product proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart XX, Refineries NESHAP. Thus, we expect streams are either received by a unit are not required to comply with the that most ethylene manufacturing covered by another MACT standard, like monitoring requirements of the BWON. facilities are currently implementing the HON, or leave the manufacturing many of the proposed requirements for 5. What Are the Startup, Shutdown, and site as product or waste. Not all streams a process unit at the plant site, which Malfunction Requirements? in the affected source contain HAP, and will lessen the burden to owners and The startup, shutdown, and the primary products of the EMPU are operators. In addition, the proposed malfunction requirements included in typically ethylene and propylene, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, the proposed NESHAP are, where neither of which are HAP. Hence, not all and testing requirements are also similar appropriate, based on startup, streams required control, only those to those required by the HON and the shutdown, and malfunction containing HAP. To simplify the process Petroleum Refineries NESHAP. requirements developed for the part 63 of determining where to apply controls, General Provisions and previously Further, the proposed NESHAP the following emission types (i.e., incorporated in 40 CFR part 63, subpart reference several other subparts which emission points) were identified as the YY. Subpart YY requires that have established requirements for sources of emissions within the EMPU: minimization of emissions from startup, equipment leaks, storage vessels, Equipment (including pumps, shutdown, and malfunctions be process vents, and waste operations. We compressors, pressure relief devices, addressed in a startup, shutdown, and made the decision to reference other valves, and connectors); storage vessels; malfunction plan. The plan must also subparts in order to expedite the transfer racks; process vents; heat establish reporting and recordkeeping of rulemaking process and to encourage exchange systems; and waste such events. The existing startup, standardization of requirements for operations. We also identified pyrolysis shutdown, and malfunction facilities subject to numerous NESHAP. furnaces and decoking operations, but requirements have been reviewed and It is not our intent to broadly apply there are no specific control were determined to be appropriate for standards that have been promulgated requirements for these two emission ethylene production sources. previously by the Agency without types. Also, during development of the thorough consideration of the proposed NESHAP, we determined that appropriateness of such an approach. 3. How Did EPA Determine the Basis decoking is a shutdown activity and We determined the appropriate and Level of the Proposed NESHAP for will be addressed through a facility’s standards for each emission type at Existing and New Sources? startup, shutdown, and malfunction ethylene manufacturing facilities prior We are aware of 36 existing facilities plan. The decoking process is similar to to making the decision to reference in this source category, 31 of which are other shutdown activities as defined in other subparts for emission control located in just two States, Texas and subpart YY. Including decoking in a standards. Louisiana. Although we surveyed only

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76428 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

11 of the facilities in Texas and facilitywide basis, it is important to note value approach or through the ‘‘plank- Louisiana, the MACT levels of control that this analysis does not result in a type’’ approach. A detailed discussion were relatively predictable and largely facilitywide level of emission reduction of the determination of the MACT floor driven by existing State programs. that is being achieved by the best and MACT for each emission type For this source category, the selection performing sources. Adequate follows. of the best performing facilities upon information, specifically data on a. Process Vents. To establish the which to determine the MACT floor emissions before control techniques are MACT floor for process vents, we used a point value approach, whereby applied, is not available to estimate determined both the level of control the floor decisions were driven by the facilitywide emissions reductions. It is required and the vents to which control facilities that have the best LDAR unlikely that an accurate measure of the must be applied. All vents at the best program for equipment leaks. The emission limitations achieved could be performing facilities are being information we collected indicates that made. It is even less likely that such a controlled using a flare or other equipment leaks are the largest source of limit could be used as the basis for a combustion device. It is generally HAP emissions at ethylene affected rule. Typically, MACT rules refer to a accepted that combustion devices sources. control device or practice as the basis of achieve a 98 weight-percent reduction To determine the existing MACT floor the standards because the MACT floor in HAP emissions; therefore, this is the using the point value approach, it was and MACT must be technically MACT floor level of control for both necessary to determine the emission achievable. This would not be possible new and existing sources. limitations achieved by the best if an estimated facilitywide emission Only two of the best performing performing 12 percent of sources (i.e., reduction was used as the basis for the facilities reported having any process five facilities) in the ethylene standards. Additional information on vents, and the volumetric flow rates and manufacturing industry. The five best selection of the five best performing HAP concentrations of the vents are not performing facilities were determined facilities and documentation on the known. The information available was on a facilitywide basis. For each MACT floor methodology and supplemented with information from emission type (equipment leaks, storage determination of MACT is included in the regulations and the permit condition vessels, waste operations, heat exchange Docket No. A–98–22. with which the two facilities are systems, process vents, and transfer As a check against whether we had complying in order to determine the racks), information on the control properly identified the appropriate applicability criteria for control. These devices and emission reduction MACT floor level of control for the other requirements include: Texas regulation techniques in place at each facility was HAP emission source types (i.e., storage 30 Texas Air Control (TAC) Chapter 115 used to identify the most controlled vessels, process vents, wastewaters, Subchapter B; 40 CFR part 60, subparts sources. A ‘‘point system’’ was used to cooling water, and furnaces), we then NNN and RRR. These regulations and rank the facilities in order of most to independently evaluated the best level the applicable permit condition all least controlled. Facilities received of performance for each emission type. require the same level of control: points for each emission type for which In other words, we performed a cursory they were among the best controlled. analysis using the ‘‘plank-type’’ Reduction of organic compounds by 98 The points received for an emission approach in determining the floor for weight-percent or to a concentration of type were weighted based on the these other emission types, as described 20 ppmv. The only differences in the relative contribution to total emissions in the preamble of the HON (59 FR applicable requirements are the cutoffs to reflect the impact that control of the 19402, April 22, 1994). We did not need for determining whether control is emission type has on the total emissions to reevaluate equipment leak best required. from a facility. All points for a facility performers since our point value Both facilities that reported having were totaled. The facilities with the five approach already emphasized best vents are subject to the Texas regulation, highest point totals are considered to be performing LDAR programs. whereas only one facility is subject to the best performing overall sources. To further verify that we had made the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, After we identified the top five the right floor selections, we visited the subparts NNN and RRR. Therefore, the performing sources, we used the Texas Natural Resources Conservation requirements of the Texas regulation are information on the emission reduction Commission to review the permits for considered to represent the median techniques and control devices in place the facilities in Texas and were able to level of control. The Texas regulation at those facilities to determine the confirm that the Texas facilities among provides both a VOC concentration and ‘‘average’’ emission limitation achieved the 11 surveyed are the best performing flow rate cutoff for vents that must be for each emission type. For each facilities in Texas. We also found that controlled. The regulation requires that emission type, the five best performing the levels of controls for all of these vents with a flow rate greater than or facilities were ranked, in order of emission source types were a function equal to 0.011 scmm and a VOC emission limitation achieved. The of compliance with either Texas or concentration greater than or equal to MACT floor for existing sources is the Louisiana permit conditions, NSPS for 500 ppmv must be controlled. Based on emission limitation achieved by the Air Oxidation and/or SOCMI vent composition data provided by the median facility. For EMPU emission Distillation (40 CFR part 60, subparts III surveyed facilities, approximately 10 types, determining the median and NNN), or the Benzene Waste percent of the VOC in process vent reduction achieved, rather than the NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF). streams are HAP. Thus, we determined arithmetic mean, was found to be the Since the best performing sources that the MACT floor for existing sources most appropriate approach, since the within each emission source type that is to control process vents with a flow median is associated with specific we identified through the point value rate greater than or equal to 0.011 scmm control technologies. The MACT floor approach were the sources complying and a HAP concentration greater than or for new sources is the emission with the most stringent applicable State equal to 50 ppmv by reducing HAP limitation achieved by the best or Federal requirements, we concluded emissions by 98 weight-percent or to a performing facility. that we would arrive at the same MACT concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to Although the five best performing floor level of control for each emission 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device facilities were determined on a source type through either the point is the control device and supplemental

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76429 combustion air is used to combust the of controls. We believe that the benefit primary and rim-mounted secondary emissions). of simplifying the proposed NESHAP by seal. For new sources, the most stringent having the same control applicability • If the vessel has a vapor recovery applicable regulation is the basis for the cutoffs for process vents at new and system routed to a control device, the control applicability cutoffs. Subpart existing sources greatly simplifies the device must control HAP emissions by NNN requires vents with a flow rate requirements for vents and outweighs 95 weight-percent. greater than or equal to 0.008 scmm to any additional cost. Thus, we • Covers and gaskets on all access be controlled. Subpart NNN of 40 CFR determined that the process vent hatches, which are to be bolted. part 63 does not specify a concentration component of MACT is the same for The overall storage control efficiency cutoff, but analysis of vents that are existing sources as it is for new sources. for the two sources that perform better required to be controlled based on the We do not have adequate data to than the median facility was considered total resource effectiveness index prove this assumption and are soliciting in determining the new source storage indicated that vents with TOC comments and data to: (1) Support or vessel component of the MACT floor. concentrations less than 300 ppmv are refute the assumption that there are few Storage vessels at the best performing not likely to be required to be controlled vents with flow rates between 0.008 and facilities have the same control as the (see the memorandum ‘‘Process Vent 0.011 scmm and HAP concentrations median facility except that all fittings on Applicability Criteria’’ in the between 30 and 50 ppmv, (2) aid in most of the storage vessels are Consolidated Federal Air Rule Docket estimating the cost of controlling these controlled. Requirements can be made more A–96–01 for a discussion of this vents if they do exist, and (3) support or stringent than the existing source analysis). Because it is assumed that refute that there is a benefit associated storage vessel component of the MACT TOC content is approximately equal to with simplifying the proposed NESHAP. floor by requiring controls that achieve VOC content for ethylene vents and that b. Storage Vessels. For storage vessel 10 percent of the VOC in these process a higher control efficiency. We emissions, the five best performing determined that for vessels with vent streams are HAP, the MACT floor facilities were ranked in order of the for new sources is to control process capacities greater than or equal to 95 emissions reductions achieved through cubic meters (25,000 gallons), the vents with a HAP concentration greater control equipment to determine the than or equal to 30 ppmv and a flow rate MACT level of control for existing median facility. In establishing the sources is the MACT floor level of greater than or equal to 0.008 scmm by storage vessel component of the MACT reducing HAP emissions by 98 weight- control with the addition of control for floor, we also determined the vessels to all fittings. This determination is based percent or to a concentration of 20 which controls would be applied. ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if on a reasonable incremental cost It was not possible to construct the a combustion device is the control effectiveness for the addition of entire storage vessel component of the device and supplemental combustion controlled fittings. We determined that MACT floor based on the vessels at the air is used to combust the emissions). it is more cost effective to implement More stringent applicability cutoffs median facility because it does not control of all fittings than it is to for control of process vents were represent the full range of vapor implement the storage vessel considered in identifying above-the- pressures of stored materials or sizes of component of the MACT floor floor options for both new and existing storage vessels. Additional information requirements alone. No options more sources. One option more stringent than was obtained from applicable stringent than the MACT floor for new the MACT floor for new sources is to regulations and permit conditions. We sources were identified. Therefore, the lower the flow rate control applicability determined that control requirements MACT level of control for new sources criteria to 0.005 scmm as used in the apply to storage vessels containing is the same as the MACT level of control HON. This cutoff is not significantly liquids with vapor pressures greater for existing sources. different than the new source MACT than or equal to 3.4 kilopascals (0.5 c. Transfer Racks. Only one of the floor cutoff. Considering that there are psia) and less than 76.6 kilopascals best performing facilities has transfer so few process vents at ethylene (11.1 psia). The level of control is based racks, and emissions are not controlled. manufacturing facilities, it is unlikely on storage vessel size. For storage Due to the limited amount of that many additional vents would be vessels with capacities greater than 4 information available, it is not possible controlled or that additional emissions cubic meters (1,000 gallons) and less to address how transfer of different reductions would be achieved by than 95 cubic meters (25,000 gallons), a materials or at different rates would be lowering the cutoff. Therefore, the submerged pipe must be used for filling controlled by the best performing applicability criteria for the new source the vessel unless more stringent controls facilities using only survey responses. MACT level of control are the same as are in place. For storage vessels with For this reason, we supplemented the the new source MACT floor level of capacities greater than or equal to 95 survey response data with information control. cubic meters (25,000 gallons), the from an applicable State regulation. The For existing sources, the control following equipment comprises the control requirements of Texas regulation applicability criteria for the new source MACT floor at existing sources: 30 TAC Chapter 115 Subchapter C, MACT were considered as an above-the- • An internal floating roof (IFR), an Volatile Organic Compound Transfer floor option. Because there are relatively external floating roof (EFR), or fixed roof Operations, Loading and Unloading of few process vents at ethylene with a closed vent system routed to a Volatile Organic Compounds, would manufacturing facilities and the process, fuel gas system, or control apply to four of the five best performing difference between the existing source device. facilities if they transfer materials MACT floor and new source MACT is • If the vessel has an IFR, a having vapor pressures and at rates that so small, it is unlikely that many mechanical shoe or liquid-mounted meet or exceed the control applicability additional vents, if any, would be primary seal, or a vapor-mounted cutoffs of the proposed NESHAP. required to be controlled if the new primary seal with a rim-mounted Subchapter C requires control of source applicability criteria are used. secondary seal. loading greater than or equal to 20,000 Therefore, it is expected that there will • If the vessel has an EFR, a gallons per day of VOC with a true be minimal to no difference in the cost mechanical shoe or liquid-mounted vapor pressure greater than or equal to

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76430 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

0.5 psia. Loading racks meeting the emissions). The same logic applies to 0.02 liters per minute. We considered control requirement applicability new sources. The least expensive using the same cutoffs for the proposed threshold are to be controlled with a control option for a new source would NESHAP. However, facilities controlling vapor recovery system that achieves a be to route transfer emissions to an waste for benzene are also achieving 90 percent recovery or a vapor balancing existing flare or new flare that must be concurrent control of other HAP with system that maintains a pressure equal constructed anyway. Therefore, the physical properties similar to benzene. to or greater than 1.5 psia. It is assumed MACT level of control for new sources In addition, expressing the cutoff that the efficiency achieved for VOC is the same as the level of control for concentration in today’s proposal as a emission control is the same as the existing sources. benzene concentration could result in a efficiency achieved for HAP control in d. Waste. According to the survey cutoff that might exclude from control the case of ethylene manufacturing responses, all of the best performing some waste streams that are similar in transfer racks. Subchapter C also facilities are controlling to comply with terms of HAP concentration as those includes requirements for transport the requirements of the BWON. being controlled at the floor. Since 10 vessels, lines, and connection systems. Therefore, the MACT floor for both new ppmw benzene is approximately the Because four of the five facilities are and existing sources is based on the same as 10 ppmw HAP for most of the subject to the requirements of control level achieved at the best waste streams, we are expressing the subchapter C and none of them are performing facilities. Although the cutoff for the MACT floor as not subject to or are controlling to levels purpose of the BWON is to control requiring control of streams containing more stringent than subchapter C, we benzene emissions, the control less than 10 ppmw total HAP or with a determined that the transfer rack technologies in use to comply with the flow rate less than 0.02 liters per component of the MACT floor for new BWON also result in the control of other minute. and existing sources is the set of HAP. Based on data received in the Finally, the BWON applies to requirements included in subchapter C. survey responses, waste streams from facilities with a TAB quantity of 10 Mg/ each EMPU that contain benzene also yr or greater. If a facility’s waste streams One above-the-floor option for contain other HAP, primarily 1,3- have less than 10 Mg/yr benzene, the existing sources is requiring a greater butadiene, cumene, ethyl benzene, facility does not have to manage or treat reduction in emissions. The HON and hexane, naphthalene, styrene, toluene, waste to comply with the BWON. This 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB (Benzene and xylene. These HAP are similar to cannot apply to MACT because MACT Transfer Operations NESHAP), require benzene in solubility and volatility. is a technology-based standard, and the 98 weight-percent control of HAP Therefore, we expect that these HAP are MACT floor is based on the control emissions from transfer racks. We controlled to a similar level as benzene technology performance for control of determined it is appropriate to require by management and treatment of the HAP at the best performing facilities. more stringent control, specifically 98 waste streams. All of the best performing facilities are weight-percent control of HAP The treatment requirements of the controlling HAP from waste streams. emissions or to a concentration of 20 BWON require removal of benzene from Therefore, the MACT floor level of ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if the waste stream to 10 ppmw or by 99 control applies at each EMPU, a combustion device is the control weight-percent. For each closed vent regardless of the TAB. We have device and supplemental combustion system and control device used to identified no rationale to support the air is used to combust the emissions). comply with the requirements of the subcategorization of waste operations Because an EMPU is either equipped BWON, a benzene reduction of 98 based on the TAB. with a flare or has access to a common weight-percent must be achieved. One above-the-floor option is to have flare, if a facility decides to equip Because facilities controlling waste no control applicability cutoffs. We transfer racks with a closed vent system under the BWON are also achieving have determined that the emissions and a control or recovery device, the equal control of other HAP with reductions that would be achieved by most cost-effective option would be to physical properties similar to benzene, the management and treatment of all route emissions to an existing flare. This the control requirements of the MACT waste streams would result in is supported by the fact that all transfer floor are the control requirements of the considerably higher costs that cannot be racks at ethylene manufacturing BWON for benzene as applied to total justified. facilities that we estimate are controlled HAP. Thus, the waste component of the Additional above-the-floor control use a flare as a control device. Routing MACT floor requires removal of total options include more stringent emissions to the flare would not cost HAP from the waste stream to 10 ppmw management and treatment more than routing emissions to another or by 99 weight-percent, and for each requirements. However, the control device and would cost less than closed vent system and control device management requirements of the BWON constructing a new control or recovery used to comply with the requirements of are already comprehensive and include device. It is generally accepted that the proposed NESHAP, a total HAP all equipment used to transport waste. flares achieve a 98 weight-percent reduction of 98 weight-percent must be Similarly, the treatment requirements reduction in HAP emissions. Since achieved. are quite stringent: removal of total HAP emissions can be reduced by 98 weight- Today’s proposed standards include from the waste stream to 10 ppmw or by percent at the same cost as reducing control applicability cutoffs which are 99 weight-percent. We have not them by 90 weight-percent, we have also based on the BWON. We identified more stringent requirements determined that the appropriate MACT considered whether the best performing for waste treatment. Therefore, we have level of control for existing sources is 98 facilities control all waste streams, and determined that MACT for both new weight-percent reduction in HAP whether we could determine a HAP and existing sources is the MACT floor emissions (if a closed vent system and concentration cutoff and flow rate cutoff level of control. control device are used) or to a as part of the MACT floor. Generally, e. Heat Exchange Systems. No control concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to the BWON does not require devices for cooling water were reported 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device management or treatment of waste by the best performing sources. is the control device and supplemental streams containing less than 10 ppmw However, using the survey data, a combustion air is used to combust the benzene or having a flow rate less than relationship was found between HAP

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76431 emissions and how often a facility analyzing the samples. The test methods similar sources did not reveal any monitors cooling water for the presence specified are based on the requirements equipment leak control strategies more of compounds that would indicate a of the HON which covers SOCMI stringent than the MACT floor for leak. This relationship likely exists sources having heat exchange system existing sources. This is not unexpected because once a leak is detected, actions processes similar to ethylene production considering the stringency of the MACT are taken to repair the leak or take the facilities. The requirements for where to floor at existing sources. The equipment leaking equipment out of service, obtain a cooling water sample are leak portion of the MACT floor requires thereby minimizing emissions from unique to an EMPU. Ethylene all components to be monitored or cooling water. Three of the five best production requires a relatively high controlled, so no additional components performing facilities monitor monthly, cooling water usage, approximately could be added to the requirements. The one monitors weekly, and one reported eight times that for a SOCMI unit. We leak definition of the floor, 500 ppmv, using an on-line head space analyzer (a are concerned that, due to the high total is the lowest used in the ethylene head space analyzer does not provide flow rate of cooling water, a leak in an manufacturing industry, with one adequate indication of leaks to cooling EMPU would result in a concentration exception. One facility is using a 300 water and was not considered in so low it would go undetected. To ppmv leak definition. We do not have determining the heat exchange system address this concern, we are requiring adequate data to determine how component of the MACT floor). that cooling water be sampled at the emissions would be impacted by using We have determined that the heat inlet and outlet of each heat exchanger. a leak definition of 300 ppmv rather exchange system component of the This will ensure that the cooling water than 500 ppmv. The Protocol for MACT floor for existing sources is a will be tested at the lowest possible flow Equipment Leak Emission Estimates cooling water LDAR program that rate, where leaks will be the least document (EPA–453/R–95–017) does includes monthly monitoring because diluted. To reduce the burden that this not include emission factors for leak this is the frequency of monitoring at requirement will cause, only heat definitions less than 500 ppmv. Due to the median facility. The heat exchange exchangers used to cool fluids the level of accuracy of the sampling system component of the MACT floor containing 5 percent HAP or greater are and testing methods and the relatively for new sources includes weekly required to be tested. This is the same small difference in leak definitions, the monitoring because this is the most cutoff used to determine which difference in emissions is likely to be frequent monitoring performed. components must be monitored as part minimal. We have not identified any One above-the-floor option is to of the LDAR program for equipment options more stringent than the require weekly monitoring at existing leaks. equipment leak floor component for sources. Other above-the-floor options, f. Equipment Leaks. The equipment existing sources. Therefore, the MACT which are not currently in place at any leak emission types include emissions level of control for equipment leaks at of the surveyed ethylene manufacturing from specific components (pumps, new and existing sources is based on the facilities, are monitoring of the cooling compressors, pressure relief devices, gas floor level of control for existing water on a daily basis or monitoring valves, light liquid valves, heavy liquid sources. continuously. valves, and connectors) of the process. We have determined that the MACT A method for estimating controlled and g. Furnaces. Typically, the ethylene levels of control are the floor levels of uncontrolled equipment leak emissions production process involves converting control for new and existing sources: a from facilities in the SOCMI was used large hydrocarbon molecules into LDAR program with monthly to quantify the effectiveness of control smaller molecules through a process monitoring for existing sources and strategies in use at the five best referred to as ‘‘thermal cracking.’’ This weekly monitoring for new sources. performing facilities. This method is takes place in the ethylene cracking Based on the information we have, the described in the 1995 Protocol for furnace. Based on information provided average monitoring frequency in Equipment Leak Emission Estimates in survey responses, the furnaces are practice by the best performing 12 (EPA document 453/R–95–017). fired with natural gas, refinery gas, off- percent of the affected sources is The median control effectiveness is gas from the production process, or a monthly. We found only one facility achieved by control strategies at three of combination of the three. Ethylene monitoring more frequently (weekly). the five best performing facilities. These cracking furnaces are expected to have Based on these findings, cost three control strategies are considered to relatively low HAP emissions. The fuels considerations and anticipated represent the equipment leak burned in cracking furnaces contain emissions reductions, we believe that, component of the MACT floor for relatively little HAP, and most organic for existing sources, monthly existing sources. The median is HAP are destroyed in the combustion monitoring is an adequate frequency to expressed as the control effectiveness process. In fact, process heaters are used satisfy MACT. achieved by control strategies at three as control devices for process vents If a leak is detected, repair is required facilities because the control containing HAP. We decided to to be completed within 15 calender days effectiveness achieved by these facilities consider standards for gas-fired process unless delay is required for reasons is equivalent. The control strategies heaters because HAP emissions can specified in the proposed standards. used by the three median facilities result from incomplete combustion, and The time allowed for repair is consistent include an LDAR program that requires natural and refinery gas combustion has with the time allowed for repair for monitoring of valves, connectors, and in been shown to result in emissions of other leaking equipment at an EMPU, some cases compressors, pumps, and formaldehyde. Ethylene cracking and we have determined that it is an pressure relief devices. Emissions from furnaces could have been included in appropriate amount of time to allow for compressors, pumps, and pressure relief separate MACT standards that are repair to heat exchange equipment as devices that are not monitored are currently being considered for process well. routed to control devices. The level of heaters. However, we decided to In addition to specifying the emissions used by the facilities to include cracking furnaces in the frequency of cooling water monitoring indicate a leak is 500 ppmv. proposed NESHAP for ethylene required, the proposed standards Review of control strategies in use, manufacturing in order to establish specify procedures for collecting and permit requirements, and regulations for comprehensive MACT standards that

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76432 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules cover all of the HAP emission types regulatory requirements for them are as a shutdown activity requires within an ethylene manufacturing included. decoking operations to be included in a process unit. h. Decoking. Coke is periodically facility’s startup, shutdown, and None of the surveyed facilities removed from the coils within an malfunction plan. This will require reported controlling HAP emissions ethylene cracking furnace through a owners and operators of ethylene units from furnaces using an add-on control process referred to as ‘‘decoking.’’ to include in their plan procedures for device. In addition to add-on controls, During the decoking process, the decoking that will minimize emissions. we considered control techniques that furnace is isolated from the rest of the This requirement is not expected to be may minimize HAP emissions. As ethylene manufacturing process, and burdensome to owners and operators as combustion destroys most organic HAP, steam is used to strip the coke from the it is expected that most facilities already it is assumed that those furnaces coils. The steam, products of have written decoking procedures. operated with optimal combustion combustion, and coke that exit the Although it has been determined that conditions would have the lowest HAP furnace coils are typically cooled, either the most appropriate way to address emissions. One difficulty in pursuing a with quench water or in a heat decoking is to consider it a shutdown level of good combustion as a regulatory exchanger. Water and coke particles are activity, we reviewed information requirement is in determining a removed with a knock-out pot or other available to determine if it would be parameter that accurately indicates good mechanical control device. The possible to establish a MACT emission combustion. Excess oxygen has been resulting water stream is routed back limit for decoking. In the survey suggested as a parameter that indicates into the process or is discarded. The responses, two facilities reported whether good combustion is being non-condensed stream is emitted to the routing decoking emissions from all achieved. Based on survey responses atmosphere or in some cases, routed furnaces to the furnace firebox. This and discussions with industry into the furnace firebox. technique may control HAP emissions None of the facilities that received the representatives, the majority of ethylene from decoking, if there are any. section 114 survey reported having any furnaces are equipped with monitors for However, its effectiveness is unknown. test data for emissions from coke excess oxygen. At least one facility has We are not aware of any test data for combustion. We were not able to locate automatic controls for excess oxygen. emissions before or after routing any test data or published emission Generally, excess oxygen is monitored through the furnace firebox. Based on factors for coke combustion. There are to ensure that adequate oxygen is the information available, if a MACT reasons to believe HAP emissions from available for combustion, and that analysis were performed for decoking, it decoking are relatively low. It is not efficient combustion is being achieved. is likely that the floor level of control likely that the coke contains much would be no control. Routing emissions Oxygen levels may also be monitored to volatile material, and volatile material ensure that they do not exceed a level should be destroyed during the to the firebox could be considered as an that would result in excessive NOX combustion phase of the decoking above-the-floor option. However, it emissions. Because excess oxygen is process. However, the conditions within would be difficult to evaluate this typically controlled by closing and the coils are not expected to be option because its effectiveness is opening dampers by hand, it is not conducive to good combustion, which unknown. The results of the review of precisely controlled, but rather allowed may result in volatile material not being information available for decoking to fluctuate within an acceptable range. destroyed. Additionally, HAP emissions confirmed our decision to regard There is no evidence to suggest that any may be created in the decoking process. decoking as a shutdown activity. of the facilities have determined the Another reason that it is important to In addition to air emissions resulting relationship between excess oxygen and consider emissions from decoking is the from decoking operations, it is also HAP emissions. Theoretically, three frequency with which it occurs. A possible that HAP may be present in the different furnaces, one with automatic typical furnace may be decoked between condensate stream that results when the excess oxygen controls, one with an 8 and 12 times per year. A typical steam, products of combustion, and excess oxygen monitor without ethylene unit may comprise eight coke are cooled and condensed. If the automatic controls, and one without furnaces. Assuming a decoke lasts 36 condensate stream is not recycled into excess oxygen monitors could have the hours, a typical ethylene unit may have the process and is discarded, it will be same level of HAP emissions because a decoke of one of its furnaces occurring covered under the waste requirements none of them are being operated to 40 percent of the time. that are also proposed today. Therefore, specifically control HAP emissions. Due to the potential for HAP all possible sources of emissions from Data are not available to determine emissions and the frequency of decoking operations are covered by the whether HAP emissions reductions are decoking, we believe that it is necessary proposed NESHAP. actually being achieved by facilities to address decoking in the proposed monitoring and/or controlling excess 4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance, NESHAP. We have determined that Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and oxygen. Therefore, we cannot require decoking is a shutdown activity and Reporting Requirements? the use of excess oxygen monitors for will, therefore, be addressed through a controlling HAP emissions from facility’s startup, shutdown, and We selected the monitoring, ethylene cracking furnaces. malfunction plan. The definition for a recordkeeping, and reporting Further, we have not identified any shutdown in the proposed NESHAP requirements of 40 CFR part 63, add-on controls or control techniques includes ‘‘the cessation of operation of subparts YY, SS, TT, UU, and WW, to currently in use to control HAP a regulated source and equipment demonstrate and document compliance emissions from ethylene cracking required or used to comply with this with the proposed NESHAP for ethylene furnaces. The MACT floor for ethylene subpart * * * for purposes of * * * production. The procedures and cracking furnaces is no control, and periodic maintenance * * *.’’ During methods set out in these subparts are, there are no known above-the-floor decoking, the cracking process ceases in where appropriate, based on procedures options. Thus, although ethylene order to allow the furnace to be and methods that we previously cracking furnaces were considered in decoked, which is essentially a developed for use in implementing developing the proposed NESHAP, no maintenance activity. Defining decoking standards for emission point sources

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76433 similar to those being proposed for the between ethylene manufacturing those with the most stringent LDAR Ethylene Production source category. facilities. The cost of control techniques programs. However, industry believes General compliance, monitoring, for some facilities will be minimal the emissions from connectors are recordkeeping, and reporting because they already have in place the inflated due to the fact that we rely requirements that would apply across work practices, equipment, and control upon the SOCMI emission factors, source categories and affected emission devices required to comply with the which they believe are not appropriate points are contained within 40 CFR part proposed NESHAP. The highest costs for connectors in the ethylene industry. 63, subpart YY (§§ 63.1108 through will be incurred by facilities that are not Industry representatives have submitted 63.1113). We specify the applicability currently complying with the BWON data to support their position that assessment procedures necessary to and will have to add waste management emissions from connectors are very low determine whether an emission point is and treatment equipment to comply and, therefore, routine connector required to apply control. These with the proposed NESHAP. We monitoring at ethylene facilities does requirements are dependent on the estimate the average cost of controls for not result in reduced emissions. emission point for which control these facilities to be $1.03 million. For Industry has concluded that the use of applicability needs to be assessed and facilities that already have waste different ethylene industry-derived the form of the applicability cutoff management and treatment equipment, emission factors for connectors would selected for an individual source we estimate the average cost to be mean that the determination of the best category (e.g., HAP concentration cutoff $7,600. performing 12 percent of facilities would not be as heavily influenced by level, above which, control is required). 3. What Are the Economic Impacts? We selected emission point and/or connector emissions as it is in our control device-specific monitoring The economic impact analysis for the analysis. They suggest that a different (including continuous monitoring), proposed NESHAP for ethylene set of five facilities (equivalent to the recordkeeping, and reporting production shows that the annual best performing 12 percent of facilities) requirements included under common compliance costs are less than 0.01 would be among the best performers control requirements in subparts percent of the sales for the 22 affected than the five facilities upon which the promulgated for storage vessels (40 CFR firms. In fact, seven firms are expected MACT floor for this proposal was part 63, subpart WW); equipment leaks to experience small savings in costs as determined. (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or TT); and a result of implementing the proposed The data provided by industry, along closed vent systems, control devices, NESHAP. Therefore, no adverse impact with correspondence from industry recovery devices and routing to a fuel is expected to occur for these firms in representatives and summaries of gas system or a process (40 CFR part 63, the ethylene manufacturing industry. stakeholder meetings have been placed subpart SS). These subparts contain a Estimation of the cost and economic in the docket (Docket No. A–98–22). We common set of monitoring, impacts of the proposed NESHAP is are soliciting comment on these data recordkeeping and reporting detailed in memoranda included in the and industry’s conclusions. We did not requirements. We established these docket for the proposed NESHAP receive industry’s data in time for subparts to ensure consistency of the air (Docket No. A–98–22). evaluation prior to this proposal. We are also soliciting comments and emission requirements applied to 4. What Are the Nonair Health, data to support the determination of the similar emission points with pollutant Environmental and Energy Impacts? process vent component of the MACT streams containing gaseous HAP. We believe that there would not be for existing sources. The MACT floor We believe that the compliance, significant adverse nonair health, level of control for existing sources monitoring, recordkeeping, and environmental, or energy impacts requires that vents with flow rates reporting requirements of subparts YY, associated with the proposed NESHAP greater than or equal to 0.011 scmm and SS, TT, and UU are appropriate for for the Ethylene Production source HAP concentrations greater than or demonstrating and documenting category. This is based on the types of equal to 50 ppmv must be controlled to compliance with the requirements control techniques expected to be used reduce HAP emissions by 98 weight- proposed for the Ethylene Production to comply with the proposed NESHAP. percent or to 20 ppmv. An above-the- source category. This is because these The majority of control techniques are floor option considered is to require requirements were established for either work practices, such as an LDAR vents with flow rates greater than or standards with similar form, and similar program for equipment leaks and equal to 0.008 scmm and HAP emission points with pollutant streams cooling water; or equipment standards, concentration of 30 ppmv or greater to of gaseous HAP for which we are such as floating roofs for storage vessels be controlled. This option is based on requiring MACT compliance which do not cause increases in water 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN— demonstration and documentation pollution; or solid waste. Because most Distillation Operations NSPS, which under this proposal. of the control techniques expected to be applies to one of the best performing D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, used to comply with the proposed facilities and is the same as the process Cost, and Economic Impacts NESHAP are either work practices or vent component of the MACT for new equipment standards, minimal increases sources. We do not have data to assess 1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? in energy use are expected. the cost effectiveness of lowering the We estimate that the proposed control applicability cutoffs for existing NESHAP will decrease HAP emissions E. Solicitation of Comments sources, but we believe the cost would by 992 Mg/yr (1,090 TPY) (a 60 percent Representatives of the ethylene be minimal because there are relatively reduction) and decrease VOC emissions industry have reviewed our MACT floor few process vents, and the cutoffs being by 9,271 Mg/yr (10,188 TPY) (a 64 approach and suggested that the MACT considered are so similar to the MACT percent reduction). floor should not include connector floor. Additionally, having the same monitoring. Industry does not refute cutoffs for new and existing sources 2. What Are the Cost Impacts? that facilities are complying with State would simplify compliance with, and The cost of implementing the control requirements for connector monitoring, enforcement of, the proposed NESHAP. techniques is expected to vary widely or that the best performing facilities are We are soliciting comments and data to:

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76434 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(1) Support or refute the assumption Toluene. Effects on the central occurs as part of the compliance that there are few vents with flow rates nervous system have been reported from determination process undertaken by between 0.008 and 0.011 scmm and acute (short-term) and chronic (long- each individual source. Area sources HAP concentrations between 30 and 50 term) exposure to toluene and include would not be subject to the proposed ppmv, (2) aid in estimating the cost of dysfunction, fatigue, sleepiness, NESHAP. controlling these vents if they do exist, headaches, and nausea. Reported effects In reaction spinning: (1) The spandex and (3) support or refute that there is a from short-term high level exposures prepolymer is extruded into spinning benefit associated with simplifying the also include cardiovascular symptoms baths containing HAP solvent, (2) the proposed NESHAP by having the same in humans. Additional long-term baths are covered with hoods and are requirements for vents at new and exposure effects include irritation of the open to the room air, (3) the hoods and existing sources. eye, throat and respiratory tract. Studies room air are vented to an emission We are also soliciting comments on of workers occupationally exposed and control device, (4) the spandex polymer the monitoring requirements for heat animals exposed in the laboratory have is generated simultaneously with exchangers. The proposed standards reported adverse affects on the extrusion, (5) drying is a separate require that cooling water samples must developing fetus. Due to a lack of process step, and (6) there are large be collected at the inlet and outlet of information for humans and inadequate quantities of HAP emissions. each heat exchanger that cools process animal evidence, EPA does not consider 2. What Is the Affected Source? fluids with 5 percent HAP or greater. An toluene classifiable as to human alternative option that was considered carcinogenicity. The affected source consists of all would allow samples to be collected at TDI. Acute exposure to high levels of process vents, storage vessels, and fiber the entrance and exit of each heat TDI can result in severe irritation of the spinning lines that are associated with exchange system, or at locations where skin and eyes and affects the reaction spinning spandex production the cooling water enters and exits each respiratory, gastrointestinal, and central processes located at a major source of heat exchanger, or any combination of nervous systems. Chronic exposure of HAP emissions, as defined in 40 CFR heat exchangers as long as the cooling workers on the job has resulted in part 63, subpart A. water flow rate at the sampling point significant decreases in lung function 3. What Are the Emission Limits, does not exceed a specified value. We and an asthma-like reaction Operating Limits, and Other Standards? do not have data to determine the characterized by wheezing, dyspnea, The following discussion briefly maximum flow rate to ensure that leaks and bronchial constriction. Animal summarizes the proposed control will be detected with the test methods studies have reported significantly requirements for the affected emission used. We are soliciting comments and increased incidences of tumors of the flow rate data to support or refute the points. pancreas, liver, and mammary glands a. Process Vents. For process vents, proposed requirements for sampling from exposure to TDI via gavage cooling water at EMPU heat exchangers. HAP emissions are required to be (experimentally placing the chemical in controlled by routing emissions through We are also soliciting comment to the stomach). The EPA has not support or refute the assumption that a closed vent system to one of the evaluated TDI for carcinogenicity, following: (1) A flare, (2) an enclosed the applicability criteria of 5 percent however, the International Agency for HAP is appropriate for determining combustion device that reduces HAP Research on Cancer has classified TDI as emissions by 95 weight-percent or to a which heat exchangers must be a possible human carcinogen. monitored for leaks. concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to B. Summary of Proposed Standards for 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device V. Spandex Production Spandex Production is the control device and supplemental A. Introduction combustion air is used to combust the 1. What Is the Source Category To Be emissions), or (3) a recovery device that 1. What Are the Primary Sources of Regulated? reduces HAP emissions by 95 weight- Emissions and What Are the Emissions? The Spandex Production source percent or to a concentration of 20 The HAP emission points covered by category includes any facility that ppmv. Requirements are the same for the proposed NESHAP include process manufactures spandex fiber by the both new and existing sources. vents, storage vessels, and fiber reaction spinning process. Spandex b. Storage Vessels. Storage vessels spinning lines. The HAP emitted from fiber is a long-chain, synthetic polymer with capacity greater than 47.3 cubic spandex production facilities include comprised of at least 85 percent by mass meters (12,500 gallons) that store toluene and TDI. The proposed of a segmented polyurethane. The materials with a maximum true vapor NESHAP would regulate emissions of spandex production process involves pressure of organic HAP greater than or these compounds, as well as other the reaction of a diisocyanate with a equal to 3.4 kilopascals (0.5 psia) are incidental organic HAP that are emitted polyol (polyester or polyether glycol) to required to control organic HAP during the manufacture of spandex generate diisocyanate-terminated emissions by using an external floating fiber. The 1997 baseline HAP emissions prepolymer. The prepolymer is roof equipped with specified primary estimate for the facilities using the extruded (or spun) while and secondary seals, by using a fixed reaction spinning process is 303 Mg/yr simultaneously reacting with a chain- roof with an internal floating roof (334 TPY). The majority of these extender in a spin bath to generate equipped with specified seals, or by emissions are from process vents and spandex fiber. venting emissions through a closed vent fiber spinning lines. There are two spandex production system to a control device achieving 95 facilities in the United States that use weight-percent control. Requirements 2. What Are the Health Effects the reaction spinning process, and both are the same for both new and existing Associated With the HAP Emitted? are presently major sources. The sources. The principle HAP associated with proposed NESHAP would apply to any c. Fiber Spinning Lines. For fiber spandex production facilities is toluene; major sources that produce spandex spinning lines, HAP emissions are another HAP emitted in very small fiber by reaction spinning. Final required to be captured and vented quantities is TDI. determination of major source status through a closed vent system to a

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76435 control device achieving 95 weight- The information in the Initial based on the average emission percent control or 20 ppmv (corrected to Notification and the application for limitation achieved by the best 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device construction or reconstruction will performing five sources. The MACT is the control device and supplemental enable enforcement personnel to floor for new sources in a source combustion air is used to combust the identify the number of sources subject category is required to reflect the level emissions). Requirements are the same to, or are already in compliance with, of control being achieved by the best for both new and existing sources. the standards. controlled similar source. In setting the MACT for spandex production using 4. What Are the Testing and Initial and You must also submit a Notification reaction spinning, we looked at the level Continuous Compliance Requirements? of Compliance Status report. You must have this notification signed by a of control presently in place at the two We are proposing testing and initial responsible company official who reaction spinning major source and continuous compliance certifies its accuracy and that the facilities. requirements that are, where affected source has complied with the At reaction spinning process spandex appropriate, based on procedures and relevant standards. You must submit the production facilities, there are a number methods that we have previously results of any required performance of process vent streams containing HAP. developed and used for emission points tests (as applicable) as part of the The process vent types include vents similar to those for which we are Notification of Compliance Status associated with prepolymer reactors, proposing NESHAP with this action. report. You must submit the dryers, and the solvent recovery system. For continuous compliance, you must Notification of Compliance Status report The floor for process vents at reaction install continuous parameter monitoring within 60 days after the compliance spinning processes requires 95 percent systems (CPMS) and conduct a date specified for an affected source control by venting through a closed vent performance evaluation of the CPMS. subject to the Generic MACT standards system to a control device. The two You must identify a relevant parameter subpart. reaction spinning process facilities that will indicate the control device is For CPMS, you must submit a report already have emission controls in place operating properly and then of the performance evaluation results to for process vents that are equivalent to continuously monitor the selected the delegated authority. You must also those required by the Generic MACT parameter. submit reports of parameter monitoring NESHAP. We are not aware of any additional controls that would get 5. What Are the Notification, deviations and CPMS performance further emissions reductions that would Recordkeeping, and Reporting deviations to the delegated authority be more effective or reasonable for Requirements? semiannually. beyond-the-floor control for process If you are subject to requirements C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed vents. Therefore, MACT for process under the Generic MACT standards Standards for Spandex Production vents is the floor level of control. subpart, you would be required to The storage vessel control 1. How Did EPA Select the Source comply with general notification, requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart Category? recordkeeping, and reporting WW, also called ‘‘Level 2’’ storage requirements. We listed Spandex Production as a vessel controls, require the vessels to be You must submit one-time reports of category of major sources of HAP on equipped with a floating roof or covered the (1) start of construction for new July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Today’s and vented through a closed vent facilities, (2) anticipated and actual proposed standards apply to reaction system to a control device. The two start-up dates for new facilities, and (3) spinning processes only. reaction spinning process facilities physical or operational changes to already have Level 2 emission controls 2. How Did EPA Determine the Affected existing facilities. You are also required on their storage vessels, and this level Source? to maintain all records for a period of of control is considered to be the floor. at least 5 years. The affected source is the We are not aware of any additional If you own or operate an affected combination of all regulated operations controls that would get further source that has an initial startup date at a spandex production facility. The emissions reductions and be more before the promulgation date of following regulated operations are effective or reasonable for beyond-the- standards for that affected source under typically performed at spandex floor control for storage vessels. the Generic MACT standards subpart, production facilities and are part of the Therefore, MACT for storage vessels at you must submit a one-time initial affected source: process vents, storage reaction spinning process spandex notification. You must submit this vessels, and fiber spinning lines. These production facilities is the MACT floor. notification within 1 year after the are the typical operations found at During the fiber spinning step, HAP promulgation date of standards for an spandex production facilities, and we are volatilized from the spin bath affected source under the Generic determined MACT for these operations. solvent tanks, washing tanks, and the MACT standards subpart (or within 1 wet belt dryers. The solvent tanks, wash 3. How Did EPA Determine the Basis year after the affected source becomes tanks, and wet belt dryers are covered and Level of the Proposed Standards for subject to the Generic MACT standards with hoods and vented to an emission Existing and New Sources? subpart). control device. There are also emissions For sources constructed or There are two spandex production into the room air, and room air is vented reconstructed after the effective date of facilities in the United States that to an emission control device. At the the relevant standards, the General produce spandex fiber by reaction two facilities in this source category, Provisions require that the source spinning; these facilities are owned by emissions from the fiber spinning lines submit an application for approval of one company. Both are major sources as are controlled by capture and construction or reconstruction. The defined under section 112(a) of the subsequent routing to an emission application is required to contain CAA. control device. The floor for fiber information on the air pollution control For a source category with fewer than spinning lines is capture of emissions that will be used for each potential HAP 30 major sources, section 112(d)(3) of around the spinning, washing and wet emission point. the CAA directs that the MACT floor be belt dryer areas of the spinning line and

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76436 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules venting to a control device that reduces We believe that the compliance, affected spandex manufacturing HAP emissions by 95 weight-percent. monitoring, recordkeeping, and facilities. The mandated levels of We are not aware of any additional reporting requirements of 40 CFR part control are met at these sources; controls that would get further 63, subparts WW and SS, are therefore, no costs are expected to be emissions reductions and be more appropriate for demonstrating and incurred by the spandex facilities in effective or reasonable for beyond-the- documenting compliance with the order to comply with the proposed floor control for fiber spinning lines. requirements proposed for the Spandex NESHAP. Instead, the compliance costs Therefore, MACT for fiber spinning Production source category. This is for the proposed NESHAP relate lines is the floor level of control. because these requirements were primarily to monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping activities. The estimated 4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance, established for standards with similar total annualized costs for the proposed Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and formats and similar emission points NESHAP are $78,040, which represents Reporting Requirements? with pollutant streams of gaseous organic HAP for which we are requiring less than 0.01 percent of the revenues of We selected the monitoring, MACT compliance demonstration and the companies that own the spandex recordkeeping, and reporting documentation under this proposal. manufacturing facilities. The proposed requirements of 40 CFR part 63, NESHAP are, therefore, expected to subparts SS and WW, to demonstrate D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, have a negligible impact on the Spandex and document compliance with the Cost, and Economic Impacts Production source category. spandex production standards. The 1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? The economic impacts at the facility procedures and methods set out in these and company levels are measured by subparts are, where appropriate, based There are no additional emissions comparing the annualized compliance on procedures and methods that we reductions achieved by the proposed costs for each entity to its revenues. A previously developed for use in NESHAP. The level of control required cost-to-sales ratio is first calculated and implementing standards for emission by the proposed NESHAP is already in then is multiplied by 100 to convert the point sources similar to those being place at the two affected reaction ratio into percentages. For the proposed proposed for the Spandex Production spinning facilities. NESHAP, a cost-to-sales ratio exceeding source category. 2. What Are the Cost Impacts? 1 percent is determined to be an initial General compliance, monitoring, indicator of the potential for a recordkeeping, and reporting The total estimated annual significant facility impact. Revenues at requirements that would apply across compliance cost of the proposed the facility level are not available, source categories and affected emission NESHAP for the Spandex Production therefore estimated facility revenues points are contained within 40 CFR part source category is $78,040. This received from the sale of spandex fiber 63, subpart YY (i.e., §§ 63.1108 through estimate includes annualized capital are used. Both affected facilities are 63.1113). We specify the applicability costs for monitoring equipment expected to incur positive compliance assessment procedures necessary to purchased. Annual costs also include costs. The ratio of costs to estimated determine whether an emission point is monitoring, recordkeeping, and revenues range from a low of 0.22 required to apply control. These reporting costs. Costs were not included percent to a high of 0.35 percent. Thus, procedures are dependent on the for control equipment since this is on average, the economic impact of the emission point for which control already in place at the two reaction proposed NESHAP is minimal for the applicability needs to be assessed and spinning process facilities. facilities producing spandex fibers. the form of the applicability cutoff The capital costs are estimated to be The share of compliance costs to selected for an individual source $32,820 (in 1998 dollars). The capital company sales are calculated to category (e.g., a HAP concentration costs are for purchase of thermocouples determine company level impacts. One cutoff level, above which control is and liquid flow transducers for CPMS company owns the two affected required). equipment, and closed vent systems facilities, so only one firm faces positive We selected monitoring (including leak detection monitors. These costs are compliance costs from the proposed continuous monitoring), recordkeeping, more than likely an overestimate since NESHAP. The ratio of costs to company and reporting requirements included the two affected facilities already have revenues is 0.10 percent. At the under common control requirements in monitors on their carbon adsorbers. company level, the proposed NESHAP subparts promulgated for storage vessels 3. What Are the Economic Impacts? are not anticipated to have a significant (40 CFR part 63, subpart WW), and economic impact on companies that closed vent systems, control devices, The goal of the economic impact own and operate the spandex fiber recovery devices and routing to a fuel analysis is to estimate the market facilities. For more information, consult gas system or a process (40 CFR part 63, response of the spandex production the economic impact analysis report subpart SS). These subparts contain a facilities to the proposed NESHAP and entitled Economic Impact Analysis: common set of monitoring, to determine the economic effects that Spandex Production, which is in the recordkeeping and reporting may result from the proposed NESHAP. docket for the spandex source category. requirements. We established these The Spandex Production source subparts to ensure consistency of the air category contains five facilities, but only 4. What Are the Nonair Health, emission requirements applied to the two facilities that use the reaction Environmental and Energy Impacts? similar emission points with pollutant spinning process are affected by the We believe that there would not be streams containing gaseous organic proposed NESHAP. These potentially significant adverse environmental or HAP. The rationale for the affected facilities are owned by one energy impacts associated with the establishment of these subparts and company. proposed NESHAP for the Spandex requirements contained within each Spandex fiber production leads to Production source category. The subpart is presented in the proposal potential HAP emissions from fiber industry’s baseline level of control is preamble for the Generic MACT spinning lines, storage tanks, and high, and the proposed NESHAP are standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY process vents; however, the emission currently being achieved for the (63 FR 55186–55191). sources are well controlled by the emission point types. Environmental

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76437 impacts from the application of the or loan programs or the rights and The proposed NESHAP would require control or recovery devices proposed for obligations of recipients thereof; or owners or operators of affected sources the Spandex Production source category (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues to retain records for a period of 5 years. are also expected to be minimal for arising out of legal mandates, the The 5 year retention period is consistent secondary air pollutants. In general, we President’s priorities, or the principles with the provisions of the General determine impacts relative to the set forth in the Executive Order. Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 and with baseline that is set at the level of control It has been determined that the the 5 year record retention requirement in absence of the proposed NESHAP. proposed NESHAP are not a ‘‘significant in the operating permit program under There is no incremental increase in regulatory action’’ under the terms of title V of the CAA. emissions related to water pollution or Executive Order 12866 and are, solid waste as a result of today’s therefore, not subject to OMB review. The recordkeeping and reporting proposed NESHAP. requirements of the proposed NESHAP B. Paperwork Reduction Act are specifically authorized by section VI. Administrative Requirements The information collection 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory requirements in the proposed NESHAP information submitted to us for which a Planning and Review have been submitted for approval to the claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to our policies in Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 51735, October 4, 1993), we must Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An ICR 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, determine whether a proposed document has been prepared by EPA ‘‘Confidentiality of Business regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and (ICR No. 1983.01) and a copy may be Information.’’ therefore subject to Office of obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at The EPA expects the proposed Management and Budget (OMB) review the Office of Environmental NESHAP to affect a total of 75 facilities and the requirements of the Executive Information, Collection Strategies over the first 3 years. The EPA assumes Order. The Executive Order defines Division (2822), U.S. Environmental that no new facilities will become ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania subject to the proposed NESHAP during that is likely to result in a rule that may: Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by each of the first 3 years. The EPA (1) Have an annual effect on the e-mail at ‘‘[email protected],’’ or by expects 75 existing facilities to be economy of $100 million or more or calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also affected by the proposed NESHAP, and be downloaded from the internet at adversely affect in a material way the these existing facilities will begin ‘‘http://www.epa.gov/icr.’’ economy, a sector of the economy, complying in the third year. productivity, competition, jobs, the Information is required to ensure environment, public health or safety, or compliance with the proposed The estimated average annual burden State, local, or tribal governments or NESHAP. If the relevant information for the first 3 years after promulgation communities; were collected less frequently, EPA of the NESHAP for the industries and (2) Create a serious inconsistency or would not be reasonably assured that a the implementing agency is outlined otherwise interfere with an action taken source is in compliance with the below. You can find the details of this or planned by another agency; proposed NESHAP. In addition, EPA’s information collection in the ‘‘Standard (3) Materially alter the budgetary authority to take administrative action Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, would be reduced significantly. No. 1983.01,’’ in Docket No. A–97–17.

Capital Operating Affected entity Total hours Labor costs costs and mainte- Total costs (10 3 $) nance costs (10 3 $) (10 3 $) (10 3 $)

Industry ...... 33,926 1,510 4,901 16 6,427 Implementing agency ...... 3,465 117 0 0 117

Burden means the total time, effort, or An agency may not conduct or Information and Regulatory Affairs, financial resources expended by persons sponsor, and a person is not required to Office of Management and Budget, 725 to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose respond to a collection of information 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, or provide information to or for a unless it displays a currently valid OMB marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for Federal agency. This includes the time control number. Control numbers for EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any needed to review instructions; develop, EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR correspondence. Since OMB is required acquire, install, and utilize technology part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. to make a decision concerning the ICR and systems for the purposes of Comments are requested on the between 30 and 60 days after December collecting, validating, and verifying Agency’s need for this information, the 6, 2000, a comment to OMB is best information, processing and accuracy of the provided burden assured of having its full effect if OMB maintaining information, and disclosing estimates, and any suggested methods receives it by January 5, 2001. The final and providing information; adjust the for minimizing respondent burden, rule will respond to any OMB or public existing ways to comply with any including the use of automated comments on the information collection previously applicable instructions and collection techniques. Send comments requirements contained in this proposal. requirements; train personnel to be able on the ICR to the Director, Office of C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism to respond to a collection of Environmental Information, Collection information; search data sources; Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Executive Order 13132, entitled complete and review the collection of Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, information; and transmit or otherwise Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 1999), requires EPA to develop an disclose the information. DC 20460; and to the Office of accountable process to ensure

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76438 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State Executive Order do not apply to the burdensome alternative that achieves and local officials in the development of proposed NESHAP. the objectives of the rule. The regulatory policies that have federalism provisions of section 205 do not apply D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have when they are inconsistent with and Coordination With Indian Tribal applicable law. Moreover, section 205 federalism implications’’ is defined in Governments the Executive Order to include allows us to adopt an alternative other regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Under Executive Order 13084, we than the least costly, most cost effective, effects on the States, on the relationship may not issue a regulation that is not or least burdensome alternative if the between the national government and required by statute, that significantly or Administrator publishes with the final the States, or on the distribution of uniquely affects the communities of rule an explanation why that alternative power and responsibilities among the Indian tribal governments, and that was not adopted. Before we establish various levels of government.’’ Under imposes substantial direct compliance any regulatory requirements that may Executive Order 13132, EPA may not costs on those communities unless the significantly or uniquely affect small issue a regulation that has federalism Federal government provides the funds governments, including tribal implications, that imposes substantial necessary to pay the direct compliance governments, it must have developed direct compliance costs, and that is not costs incurred by the tribal under section 203 of the UMRA a small required by statute, unless the Federal governments, or we consult with those government agency plan. The plan must government provides the funds governments. If we comply by provide for notifying potentially necessary to pay the direct compliance consulting, we are required by affected small governments, enabling costs incurred by State and local Executive Order 13084 to provide to the officials of affected small governments governments, or EPA consults with OMB in a separately identified section to have meaningful and timely input in State and local officials early in the of the preamble to the rule, a the development of our regulatory process of developing the proposed rule. description of the extent of our prior proposals with significant Federal The EPA also may not issue a regulation consultation with representatives of intergovernmental mandates, and that has federalism implications and affected tribal governments, a summary informing, educating, and advising that preempts State law unless the of the nature of their concerns, and a small governments on compliance with Agency consults with State and local statement supporting the need to issue the regulatory requirements. officials early in the process of the regulation. In addition, Executive We have determined that the Order 13084 requires us to develop an developing the proposed rule. proposed NESHAP do not contain a effective process permitting elected Federal mandate that may result in If EPA complies by consulting, officials and other representatives of expenditures of $100 million or more by Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide State, local, and tribal governments, in provide to OMB, in a separately meaningful and timely input in the the aggregate, or the private sector in identified section of the preamble to the development of regulatory policies on any 1 year. The total cost to the private rule, a federalism summary impact matters that significantly or uniquely sector is approximately $22.2 million statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include affect their communities.’’ per year. The proposed NESHAP a description of the extent of EPA’s Today’s proposed NESHAP do not contain no mandates affecting State, prior consultation with State and local significantly or uniquely affect the local, or tribal governments. Thus, officials, a summary of the nature of communities of Indian tribal today’s proposed NESHAP are not their concerns and the Agency’s governments. No tribal governments are subject to the requirements of sections position supporting the need to issue believed to be affected by the proposed 202 and 205 of the UMRA. the regulation, and a statement of the NESHAP. Accordingly, the We have determined that the extent to which the concerns of State requirements of section 3(b) of proposed NESHAP contain no and local officials have been met. Also, Executive Order 13084 do not apply to regulatory requirements that might when EPA transmits a draft final rule the proposed NESHAP. significantly or uniquely affect small with federalism implications to OMB for governments because they contain no review pursuant to Executive Order E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requirements that apply to such 12866, EPA must include a certification governments or impose obligations from the Agency’s Federalism Official Title II of the Unfunded Mandates upon them. stating that EPA has met the Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public requirements of Executive Order 13132 Law 104–4, establishes requirements for F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as in a meaningful and timely manner. Federal agencies to assess the effects of Amended by the Small Business The proposed NESHAP will not have their regulatory actions on State, local, Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of substantial direct effects on the States, and tribal governments and the private 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. on the relationship between the national sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, The RFA generally requires an agency government and the States, or on the we must generally prepare a written to prepare a regulatory flexibility distribution of power and statement, including a cost-benefit analysis of any rule subject to notice responsibilities among the various analysis, for proposed and final rules and comment rulemaking requirements levels of government, as specified in with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may under the Administrative Procedure Act Executive Order 13132. No facilities result in expenditures to State, local, or any other statute unless the agency subject to the proposed NESHAP are and tribal governments, in the aggregate, certifies that the rule will not have a owned by State or local governments. or to the private sector, of $100 million significant economic impact on a Therefore, State and local governments or more in any 1 year. Before substantial number of small entities. will not have any direct compliance promulgating a rule for which a written Small entities include small businesses, costs resulting from the proposed statement is needed, section 205 of the small organizations, and small NESHAP. Furthermore, EPA is directed UMRA generally requires us to identify governmental jurisdictions. to develop the proposed NESHAP by and consider a reasonable number of For purposes of assessing the impacts section 112 of the CAA. Thus, the regulatory alternatives and adopt the of today’s proposed rule on small requirements of section 6 of the least costly, most cost effective, or least entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76439 small business whose parent company was written to support the specific use (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically has fewer than 1000 employees (500 for of highly portable and automated GC/ significant’’ as defined under Executive the Carbon Black source category); (2) a MS. While offering advantages over the Order 12866, and (2) concerns an small governmental jurisdiction that is a traditional Method 18, the ASTM environmental health or safety risk that government of a city, county, town, method does allow some less stringent we have reason to believe may have a school district or special district with a criteria for accepting GC/MS results disproportionate effect on children. If population of less than 50,000; and (3) than required by Method 18. Therefore, the regulatory action meets both criteria, a small organization that is any not-for- ASTM D6420–99 is a suitable the Agency must evaluate the profit enterprise which is independently alternative to Method 18 where: (1) The environmental health or safety effects of owned and operated and is not target compounds are those listed in the planned rule on children, and dominant in its field. Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420–99, and (2) explain why the planned regulation is After considering the economic the target concentration is between 150 preferable to other potentially effective impacts of today’s proposed rule on parts per billion by volume and 100 and reasonably feasible alternatives small entities, I certify that this action ppmv. considered by the Agency. will not have a significant economic For target compounds not listed in The EPA interprets Executive Order impact on a substantial number of small Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420–99, but 13045 as applying only to those entities. This proposed rule will not potentially detected by mass regulatory actions that are based on impose any requirements on small spectrometry, the regulation specifies health or safety risks, such that the entities. There are no small entities that the additional system continuing analysis required under section 5–501 of affected by this proposed rule. calibration check after each run, as the Executive Order has the potential to detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM G. National Technology Transfer and influence the regulation. This proposal method, must be followed, met, Advancement Act is not subject to Executive Order 13045 documented, and submitted with the because it is based on technology Section 12(d) of the National data report even if there is no moisture performance and not on health or safety Technology Transfer and Advancement condenser used or the compound is not risks. Additionally, the proposed Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113) considered water soluble. For target NESHAP are not economically (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use compounds not listed in Table 1.1 of significant as defined by Executive voluntary consensus standards in their ASTM D6420–99 and not amenable to Order 12866. regulatory and procurement activities detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM unless to do so would be inconsistent D6420–99 does not apply. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 with applicable law or otherwise The EPA proposes to incorporate by Environmental protection, Air impractical. Voluntary consensus reference ASTM 6420–99 into 40 CFR pollution control, Hazardous air standards are technical standards (e.g., 63.14 for application to subpart SS of pollutants, Reporting and recordkeeping materials specifications, test methods, part 63. The EPA will also cite Method requirements, Volatile organic sampling procedures, business 18 as a GC option in addition to ASTM compounds. practices) developed or adopted by one D6420–99. This will allow the Dated: November 3, 2000. or more voluntary consensus bodies. continued use of other GC Carol M. Browner, The NTTAA directs EPA to provide configurations. Congress, through annual reports to For EPA Methods 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 2c, 2d, Administrator. OMB, with explanations when an 2f, 2g, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 25, 25a, 26, 26a, 316, For the reasons set out in the agency does not use available and and 320, no applicable voluntary preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of applicable voluntary consensus consensus standards were found at this the Code of Federal Regulations is standards. time. The search and review results proposed to be amended as follows: The proposed NESHAP involve have been documented and are placed PART 63ÐNATIONAL EMISSION technical standards. The EPA proposes in the Generic MACT docket (Docket to use EPA Methods 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 2c, 2d, STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR No. A–97–17). POLLUTANTS FOR AFFECTED 2f, 2g, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 18, 25, 25a, 26, 26a, The EPA requests comment on SOURCE CATEGORIES 316, and 320. Consistent with the compliance demonstration requirements NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to proposed today and specifically invites 1. The authority citation for part 63 identify voluntary consensus standards the public to identify potentially continues to read as follows: in addition to these EPA methods. One applicable voluntary consensus Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. voluntary consensus standard was standards. Comments should explain identified as applicable and EPA why the proposed NESHAP should 2. Part 63 is proposed to be amended proposes to use it in the proposed adopt these voluntary consensus by adding a new subpart XX to read as NESHAP. standards in lieu of EPA’s standards. follows: The American Society for Testing and Emission test methods and performance Materials (ASTM) consensus standard, Subpart XXÐNational Emission specifications submitted for evaluation Standards for Ethylene Manufacturing ASTM D6420–99, Standard Test Method should be accompanied with a basis for for Determination of Gaseous Organic Process Units: Heat Exchange the recommendation, including method Systems and Waste Compounds by Direct Interface Gas validation data and the procedure used Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry to validate the candidate method (if a Sec. (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases method other than Method 301 of 40 Introduction described below for inclusion in the CFR part 63, appendix A, is used). proposed NESHAP in addition to EPA 63.1080 What does this subpart do? Methods. Similar to EPA’s performance- H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 63.1081 When must I comply with the based Method 18, ASTM D6420–99 is Children From Environmental Health requirements of this subpart? also a performance-based method for Risks and Safety Risks Applicability for Heat Exchange Systems measurement of gaseous organic Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 63.1082 Does this subpart apply to my heat compounds. However, ASTM D6420–99 April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: exchange system?

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76440 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

63.1083 What heat exchange systems are § 63.1081 When must I comply with the (e) Your recirculating heat exchange exempt from the requirements of this requirements of this subpart? system cools process fluids that contain subpart? You must comply with the less than 5 percent by weight of HAP. Heat Exchange System Requirements requirements of this subpart according (f) The once-through heat exchange 63.1084 What are the general requirements to the schedule specified in system cools process fluids that contain for heat exchange systems? § 63.1102(a). less than 5 percent by weight of HAP. Monitoring Requirements for Heat Exchange Applicability for Heat Exchange Heat Exchange System Requirements Systems Systems § 63.1084 What are the general 63.1085 How must I monitor for leaks to § 63.1082 Does this subpart apply to my requirements for heat exchange systems? cooling water? heat exchange system? Unless you meet one of the 63.1086 Where must I monitor for leaks to cooling water? The provisions of this subpart apply requirements for exemptions in to your heat exchange system if you § 63.1083, you must meet the Repair Requirements for Heat Exchange requirements in paragraphs (a) through Systems own or operate an ethylene manufacturing process unit expressly (d) of this section. 63.1087 What actions must I take if a leak referenced to this subpart XX from (a) Monitor the cooling water for the is detected? presence of substances that indicate a subpart YY of this part. 63.1088 In what situations may I delay leak leak according to §§ 63.1085 and repair, and what actions must I take for § 63.1083 What heat exchange systems 63.1086. delay of repair? are exempt from the requirements of this (b) If you detect a leak, repair it Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements subpart? according to § 63.1087 unless repair is for Heat Exchange Systems Your heat exchange system is exempt delayed according to § 63.1088. 63.1089 What records must I keep? from the requirements in §§ 63.1084 and (c) Keep the records specified in 63.1090 What reports must I submit? 63.1085 if it meets at least one of the § 63.1089. criteria in paragraphs (a) through (f) of (d) Submit the reports specified in Background for Waste Requirements § 63.1090. 63.1091 What do the waste requirements this section. do? (a) Your heat exchange system Monitoring Requirements for Heat 63.1092 What are the major differences operates with the minimum pressure on Exchange Systems between the requirements of 40 CFR part the cooling water side at least 35 61, subpart FF, and the waste kilopascals greater than the maximum § 63.1085 How must I monitor for leaks to cooling water? requirements for ethylene production pressure on the process side. sources? (b) Your heat exchange system You must monitor for leaks to cooling Applicability for Waste Requirements contains an intervening cooling fluid, water according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 63.1093 Does this subpart apply to my containing less than 5 percent by weight of HAP, between the process and the section. waste streams? (a) Monitor the cooling water for HAP 63.1094 What waste streams are exempt cooling water. This intervening fluid (either in total or speciated) or other from the requirements of this subpart? must serve to isolate the cooling water representative substances (e.g., total from the process fluid and must not be Waste Requirements organic carbon or volatile organic sent through a cooling tower or 63.1095 What specific requirements must I compounds (VOC)) that indicate the discharged. For purposes of this section, comply with? presence of a leak in the heat exchange discharge does not include emptying for 63.1096 What requirements must I comply system. with if I transfer waste offsite? maintenance purposes. (b) Monitor the cooling water monthly (c) The once-through heat exchange Definitions for Waste Requirements for heat exchange systems at existing system is subject to a National Pollution sources; weekly for heat exchange 63.1097 What definitions do I need to Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) know? systems at new sources. permit with an allowable discharge (c) Determine the concentration of the Implementation and Enforcement limit of 1 part per million by weight monitored substance in the cooling 63.1098 Who implements and enforces this (ppmw) or less above influent water using any method listed in 40 subpart? concentration or 10 percent or less CFR part 136, as long as the method is above influent concentration, whichever sensitive to concentrations as low as 10 Tables to Subpart XX is greater. Table 1 to Subpart XX—Hazardous Air ppmw. Use the same method for both (d) Your once-through heat exchange entrance and exit samples. Alternative Pollutants system is subject to a NPDES permit that Table 2 to Subpart XX—Specific Differences methods may be used upon approval by in Requirements of this subpart and 40 meets the conditions in paragraphs the U.S. Environmental Protection CFR Part 61, Subpart FF (d)(1) through (4) of this section. Agency (EPA) Administrator. Table 3 to Subpart XX—Sections of 40 CFR (1) The permit requires monitoring of (d) Take a minimum of three sets of Part 61, Subpart FF, that are not a parameter or condition to detect a leak samples at each entrance and exit as Included in the Requirements of this of process fluids to cooling water. defined in § 63.1086(a). Subpart (2) The permit specifies or includes (e) Calculate the average entrance and Introduction the normal range of the parameter or exit concentrations, correcting for the condition. addition of make-up water and § 63.1080 What does this subpart do? (3) The permit requires monthly or evaporative losses, if applicable. Using This subpart establishes requirements more frequent monitoring for the a one-sided statistical procedure at the for controlling emissions of hazardous parameters selected as leak indicators. 0.05 level of significance, if the exit air pollutants (HAP) from heat exchange (4) The permit requires you to report mean concentration is at least 1 ppmw systems and waste streams at new and and correct leaks to the cooling water or 10 percent of the entrance mean, existing ethylene manufacturing process when the parameter or condition whichever is greater, you have detected units. exceeds the normal range. a leak.

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76441

§ 63.1086 Where must I monitor for leaks multiplying the concentration of HAP requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart to cooling water? (or other monitored substances) in the FF, National Emission Standards for You must collect samples at the cooling water from the leaking heat Benzene Waste Operations. Because the entrance and exit of each nondirect- exchanger by the flowrate of the cooling requirements of subpart FF of 40 CFR contact heat exchanger in the ethylene water from the leaking heat exchanger part 61 regulate benzene emissions and manufacturing process unit used to cool and by the expected duration of the this subpart regulates HAP, there are fluids containing 5 percent by weight delay. some differences between the ethylene organic HAP (or other mentioned (3) Determine emissions from purging production waste requirements and substances) or greater. and depressurizing the equipment that those of subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61. Repair Requirements for Heat Exchange will result from the unscheduled Additionally, some compliance options Systems shutdown for the repair. available in subpart FF of 40 CFR part (c) If repair is delayed for reasons 61 do not apply to ethylene production § 63.1087 What actions must I take if a leak other than those specified in paragraph sources. is detected? (a) or (b) of this section, you may delay repair a maximum of 30 calendar days. § 63.1092 What are the major differences If a leak is detected, you must comply between the requirements of 40 CFR part with the requirements in paragraphs (a) You must demonstrate that the 61, subpart FF, and the waste requirements and (b) of this section unless repair is necessary parts or personnel were not for ethylene production sources? available. delayed according to § 63.1088. The major differences between the (a) Repair the leak as soon as practical Recordkeeping and Reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart but not later than 15 calender days after Requirements for Heat Exchange FF and the requirements for ethylene you received the results of monitoring Systems production sources are listed in tests that indicated a leak. You must paragraphs (a) through (c) of this repair the leak unless you demonstrate § 63.1089 What records must I keep? section. that the results are due to a condition You must keep the records in (a) The requirements for ethylene other than a leak. paragraphs (a) through (c) of this production sources apply to all ethylene (b) Once the leak has been repaired, section, according to the requirements production sources that are part of a confirm that the heat exchange system of § 63.1109(c). major source. The requirements do not has been repaired according to the (a) Monitoring data required by include a provision to exempt sources monitoring requirements in §§ 63.1085 § 63.1085 that indicates a leak, the date with a total annual benzene quantity and 63.1086 within 7 calender days of the leak was detected, or, if applicable, less than 10 megagrams per year, or any the repair or startup, whichever is later. the basis for determining there is no similar cutoff, from control § 63.1088 In what situations may I delay leak. requirements. leak repair, and what actions must I take for (b) The dates of efforts to repair leaks. (b) The requirements for ethylene delay of repair? (c) The method or procedures used to production sources apply to waste You may delay repair of heat confirm repair of a leak, and the date the streams containing any of the HAP exchange systems for which leaks have repair was confirmed. listed in Table 1 to this subpart, not been detected if the leaking equipment (d) Documentation of delay of repair only waste streams containing benzene. is isolated from the process. You may as specified in § 63.1088. (c) The requirements for ethylene production sources do not include the also delay repair if repair is technically § 63.1090 What reports must I submit? infeasible without a shutdown, and you compliance options at 40 CFR meet one of the conditions in If you delay repair for your heat 61.342(c)(3)(ii), (d) and (e). exchange system, you must report the paragraphs (a) through (c) of this Applicability for Waste Requirements section. delay of repair in the semiannual report (a) If a shutdown is expected within required by § 63.1110(e). If the leak § 63.1093 Does this subpart apply to my 15 calendar days of determining delay remains unrepaired, you must continue waste streams? of repair is necessary, you are not to report the delay of repair in The waste stream provisions of this required to have a special shutdown semiannual reports until you repair the subpart apply to your waste streams if before that planned shutdown. leak. You must include the information you own or operate an ethylene (b) If a shutdown is not expected in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this production facility expressly referenced within 15 calendar days of determining section in the semiannual report. to this subpart XX from 40 CFR part 63, (a) The fact that a leak was detected, delay of repair is necessary, you may subpart YY. delay repair if a shutdown for repair and the date that the leak was detected. would cause greater emissions than the (b) Whether or not the leak has been § 63.1094 What waste streams are exempt potential emissions from delaying repair repaired. from the requirements of this subpart? until the next shutdown of the process (c) The reasons for delay of repair. If The types of waste described in equipment associated with the leaking you delayed the repair as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are heat exchanger. You must document the § 63.1088(b), documentation of exempt from this subpart. basis for the determination that a emissions estimates. (a) Waste in the form of gases or shutdown for repair would cause greater (d) If a leak remains unrepaired, the vapors that is emitted from process emissions than the emissions likely to expected date of repair. fluids. result from delay of repair. The (e) If a leak is repaired, the date the (b) Waste that is contained in a documentation process must include leak was successfully repaired. segregated storm water sewer system. the activities in paragraphs (b)(1) Background for Waste Requirements Waste Requirements through (3) of this section. (1) Specify a schedule for completing § 63.1091 What do the waste requirements § 63.1095 What specific requirements the repair as soon as practical. do? must I comply with? (2) Calculate the potential emissions The waste requirements in this For waste containing the HAP listed from the leaking heat exchanger by subpart require you to comply with in Table 1 to this subpart, you must

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76442 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules comply with all of the requirements of requirements of this subpart in Implementation and Enforcement 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, as modified accordance with the requirements of by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this this subpart. The certifying entity may § 63.1098 Who implements and enforces this subpart? section. revoke the written certification by (a) Use the term ‘‘HAP’’ instead of sending a written statement to the EPA (a) This subpart can be implemented ‘‘benzene’’ everywhere ‘‘benzene’’ and you giving at least 90 days notice and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated appears in 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, that the certifying entity is rescinding authority such as the applicable State, unless Table 2 to this subpart instructs acceptance of responsibility for local, or tribal agency. If the EPA an alternate substitution for a phrase compliance with the regulatory Administrator has delegated authority to containing ‘‘benzene,’’ as discussed in provisions listed in this paragraph (b). a State, local, or tribal agency, then that paragraph (b) of this section. For the Upon expiration of the notice period, agency has the authority to implement purposes of the waste requirements of you may not transfer the waste stream and enforce this subpart. Contact the this subpart, HAP means any of the to the treatment operation. applicable EPA Regional Office to find compounds listed in Table 1 to this (c) By providing this written out if this subpart is delegated to a State, subpart. certification to the EPA, the certifying local, or tribal agency. (b) Apply the wording differences entity accepts responsibility for (b) In delegating implementation and listed in Table 2 to this subpart as compliance with the regulatory enforcement authority of this subpart to specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of provisions in paragraph (b) of this a State, local, or tribal agency under this section. section with respect to any shipment of subpart E of this part, the authorities (1) Table 2 to this subpart gives a waste covered by the written contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through referenced section of 40 CFR part 61, certification. Failure to abide by any of (5) of this section are retained by the subpart FF, and a phrase that appears in those provisions with respect to such EPA Administrator and are not that section. Instead of the phrase in 40 shipments may result in enforcement transferred to the State, local, or tribal CFR part 61, subpart FF, use the phrase action by the EPA against the certifying agency. in the last column of Table 2 to this entity in accordance with the (1) Approval of alternatives to the subpart to produce the requirements for enforcement provisions applicable to non-opacity emissions standards in ethylene production sources. violations of those provisions by owners §§ 63.1084, 63.1085 and 63.1095, under (2) If a section of 40 CFR part 61, or operators of sources. § 63.6(g). Where these standards subpart FF, references another section of (d) Written certifications and reference another subpart, the cited subpart FF, you must comply with the revocation statements to the EPA from provisions will be delegated according referenced section, except use the the transferees of waste shall be signed to the delegation provisions of the wording differences specified in Table 2 by the responsible official of the referenced subpart. certifying entity, provide the name and to this subpart to produce the (2) [Reserved] address of the certifying entity, and be requirements for ethylene production (3) Approval of major alternatives to sources. sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office at the addresses listed in 40 CFR test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (c) Table 3 to this subpart shows the (f) and as defined in § 63.90. sections of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, 63.13. Such written certifications are not transferable by the treater. (4) Approval of major alternatives to that are not included in the waste monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as requirements of this subpart. Definitions for Waste Requirements defined in § 63.90. § 63.1096 What requirements must I § 63.1097 What definitions do I need to (5) Approval of major alternatives to comply with if I transfer waste offsite? know? recordkeeping and reporting under If you elect to transfer waste offsite, (a) Unless defined in paragraph (b) of § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. you must comply with the requirements this section, definitions for terms used TABLES TO SUBPART XX in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this in this subpart are provided in the Clean section. Air Act, § 63.1103(e), or § 61.341, except TABLE 1 TO SUBPART XX.Ð (a) Include a notice with the shipment use the wording differences specified in HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS or transport of each waste stream. The Table 2 to this subpart to produce the notice shall state that the waste stream definitions for ethylene production CAS Hazardous air pollutant a contains organic HAP that are to be sources. number a treated in accordance with the (b) The following definitions apply to provisions of this subpart. When the terms used in this subpart: Benzene ...... 71432 transport is continuous or ongoing (for Process wastewater means water 1,3-Butadiene ...... 106990 example, discharge to a publicly-owned which comes in contact with any of the Cumene ...... 98828 treatment works), the notice shall be HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart Ethyl benzene ...... 100414 Hexane ...... 110543 submitted to the treatment operator during manufacturing or processing Naphthalene ...... 91203 initially and whenever there is a change operations conducted within an Styrene ...... 100425 in the required treatment. ethylene manufacturing process unit. Toluene ...... 108883 (b) You may not transfer the waste Process wastewater is not organic o-Xylene ...... 95476 stream unless the transferee has wastes, process fluids, product tank m-Xylene ...... 108383 submitted to the EPA a written drawdown, cooling water blowdown, p-Xylene ...... 106423 certification that the transferee will steam trap condensate, or landfill a Includes all isomers of listed pollutant al- manage and treat any waste stream leachate. Process wastewater includes though isomers may have a different CAS received from a source subject to the direct-contact cooling water. number.

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76443

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART XX.ÐSPECIFIC DIFFERENCES IN REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBPART AND 40 CFR PART 61, SUBPART FF

To comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart a XX, in * * * Instead of the phrase: Use the phrase :

§ 61.341 ...... benzene ...... any HAP. § 61.342(c) ...... at which the total annual benzene quantity from facility to which the wastewater requirements of waste is equal to or greater than 10 Mg/yr as deter- this subpart XX apply. mined in paragraph (a) of this section. § 61.342(c)(1) ...... benzene ...... any HAP. § 61.342(c)(2) ...... benzene concentration ...... total HAP concentration. § 61.342(c)(3) ...... either paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section ...... paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section. § 61.348(a)(1)(i) ...... level ...... total level. § 61.348(b)(2)(i) ...... benzene ...... total HAP. § 61.349(a)(2)(i)(A) ...... reduce the organic emissions vented to it by 95 weight reduce the HAP or total organic com- percent or greater. pound emissions vented to it by 98 weight percent or greater. § 61.349(a)(2)(ii) ...... recover or control the organic emissions vented to it recover or control the HAP or total or- with an efficiency of 95 weight percent or greater, or ganic compound emissions vented to it shall recover or control the benzene emissions vent- with an efficiency of 98 weight percent ed to it with an efficiency of 98 weight percent or or greater. greater. § 61.349(a)(2)(iv)(A) ...... the device shall recover or control the organic emis- the device shall recover or control the sions vented to it with an efficiency of 95 weight per- HAP or total organic compound emis- cent or greater, or shall recover or control the ben- sions vented to it with an efficiency of zene emissions vented to it with an efficiency of 98 98 weight percent or greater. weight percent or greater. § 61.349(a)(2)(iv)(B) ...... the control device will achieve an emission control effi- the control device will achieve an emis- ciency of either 95 percent or greater for organic sion control efficiency of 98 percent or compounds or 98 percent or greater for benzene. greater for HAP or total organic com- pounds. § 61.354(a)(1) ...... at least once per month by collecting and analyzing continuously. one or more samples using the procedures specified in § 61.355(c)(3). § 61.354(c)(6)(i) ...... either the concentration level of the organic compounds the concentration level of the organic or the concentration level of benzene. compounds. § 61.354(c)(7)(i) ...... either the concentration level of the organic compounds the concentration level of the organic or the benzene concentration level. compounds. § 61.354(c)(8) ...... either the concentration level of the organic compounds the concentration level of the organic or the benzene concentration level. compounds. § 61.354(d) ...... either the concentration level of the organic compounds the concentration level of the organic or the concentration level of benzene. compounds. § 61.354(d) ...... either the organic concentration or the benzene con- the organic concentration. centration. § 61.355(c)(3)(v) ...... benzene ...... total HAP. § 61.355(e)(3) ...... benzene ...... total HAP. § 61.355(e)(4) ...... benzene ...... total HAP. § 61.355(f)(3) ...... benzene ...... total HAP. § 61.355(f)(4)(iii) ...... C=Concentration of benzene ...... C=Sum of concentrations of HAP meas- ured in the exhaust, ppmv. § 61.355(f)(4)(iii) ...... K=Conversion factor=3.24 kg/m31 for benzene ...... K=Weighted average density of HAP at standard conditions, kg/m3. § 61.355(g) ...... benzene concentration ...... total HAP concentration. § 61.355(i) ...... either the organic reduction efficiency requirement or the HAP or total organic compound re- the benzene reduction efficiency requirement speci- duction efficiency specified under fied under § 61.349(a)(2). § 61.349(a)(2). § 61.355(i)(3)(iii) ...... benzene concentration ...... concentration of HAP i. § 61.355(i)(3)(iii) ...... molecular weight of benzene ...... molecular weight of HAP i. § 61.355(i)(3)(iii) ...... number of organic compounds in the vent stream ...... number of organic compounds or HAP in the vent stream. § 61.355(i)(4) ...... benzene ...... total HAP. § 61.356(b)(1) ...... waste stream identification, water content, whether or waste stream identification, whether or not the waste stream is a process wastewater not the waste stream is a process stream, annual waste quantity, range of benzene wastewater stream, range of HAP con- concentrations, annual average flow-weighted ben- centrations, and annual average flow- zene concentration, and annual benzene quantity. weighted HAP concentrations. § 61.356(j)(8) ...... organics or concentration of benzene ...... organics. § 61.356(j)(8) ...... organics or the concentration of benzene ...... organics. § 61.356(j)(9) ...... organics or the concentration of benzene ...... organics. § 61.357(a) ...... within 90 days after January 7, 1993 ...... as part of the initial notification report re- quired in paragraph (c) of § 63.1110. § 61.357(a) ...... § 61.342 ...... 40 CFR part 63, subpart XX. § 61.357(a) ...... the report shall include the following information: ...... the report shall include the information in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) except (a)(3)(i) of this section.

VerDate 112000 19:58 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 06DEP2 76444 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART XX.ÐSPECIFIC DIFFERENCES IN REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBPART AND 40 CFR PART 61, SUBPART FFÐContinued

To comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart a XX, in * * * Instead of the phrase: Use the phrase :

§ 61.357(a)(3)(iii) ...... Annual waste quantity for the waste stream ...... If the stream is managed or treated in an exempt unit according to § 61.348(b), annual waste quantity for the waste stream. § 61.357(a)(4) ...... paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3) ...... paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) except (a)(3)(i) of this section. § 61.357(d) ...... if the total annual benzene quantity from facility waste the owner or operator to which the waste- is equal to or greater than 10 Mg/yr, then the owner water requirements of 40 CFR part 63, or operator. subpart XX apply. § 61.357(d)(1) ...... within 90 days after January 7, 1993 ...... with the Notification of Compliance Status report required by paragraph (d) of § 63.1110. § 61.357(d)(2) ...... paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section ...... paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) except (a)(3)(i) of this section. § 61.357(d)(7)(iii) ...... concentration of benzene ...... total concentration of HAP. a For the purpose of this table and the waste requirements of this subpart, HAP means any of the compounds listed in Table 1 to this subpart.

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART XX.ÐSECTIONS (i) If a flow indicator is used, take a (3) Approval of major alternatives to OF 40 CFR PART 61, SUBPART FF, reading at least once every 15 minutes. test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE (ii) If the bypass line valve is secured (f) and as defined in § 63.90. (4) Approval of major alternatives to REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SUBPART in the non-diverting position, visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism at monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as Section Paragraphs least once every month to verify that the defined in § 63.90. (5) Approval of major alternatives to valve is maintained in the non-diverting recordkeeping and reporting under 61.340 ...... all. position, and the vent stream is not § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. 61.342 ...... (a), (b), (c)(3)(ii), (d), (e), (f). diverted through the bypass line. 61.348 ...... (d)(3), (d)(4). 5. Section 63.996 is amended by 61.355 ...... (a), (j), (k). * * * * * adding paragraphs (c)(7) through (10) as 61.356 ...... (b)(2)(ii),(b)(3) through (5). 4. Section 63.992 is added to read as follows: 61.357 ...... (a)(1), (a)(3)(i), (b), (c), (d)(3) follows: through (5). § 63.996 General monitoring requirements § 63.992 Implementation and enforcement. for control and recovery devices. Subpart SSÐ[Amended] (a) This subpart can be implemented * * * * * (c) * * * 3. Section 63.983 is amended by: and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated (7) For each CPMS, the owner or a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and authority such as the applicable State, operator must meet the requirements in (ii); local, or tribal agency. If the EPA paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this b. Revising the heading for paragraph Administrator has delegated authority to section. (b); and a State, local, or tribal agency, then that (i) The CPMS must complete a c. Adding paragraph (b)(4). agency has the authority to implement minimum of one cycle of operation for The revisions and addition read as and enforce this subpart. Contact the each successive 15-minute period. follows: applicable EPA Regional Office to find (ii) To calculate a valid hourly out if this subpart is delegated to a State, average, there must be at least four § 63.983 Closed vent systems. local, or tribal agency. equally spaced values for that hour, * * * * * (b) In delegating implementation and excluding data collected during the (a) * * * enforcement authority of this subpart to periods described in paragraph (c)(5) of (3) * * * a State, local, or tribal agency under this section. (i) Properly install, maintain, and subpart E of this part, the authorities (iii) Calculate a daily average using all operate a flow indicator that is capable contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through of the valid hourly averages for each of taking periodic readings. Records (5) of this section are retained by the day. shall be generated as specified in EPA Administrator and are not (8) For each temperature monitoring § 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(A). The flow indicator transferred to the State, local, or tribal device, meet the requirements in shall be installed at the entrance to any agency. paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (viii) of this bypass line. section. (ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the (1) Approval of alternatives to the (i) Locate the temperature sensor in a non-diverting position with a car-seal or non-opacity emissions standards in position that provides a representative a lock-and-key type configuration. §§ 63.983(a) and (d), 63.984, 63.685(a), temperature. Records shall be generated as specified 63.986(a), 63.987(a), 63.988(a), (ii) For a noncryogenic temperature in § 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(B). 63.990(a), 63.993(a), 63.994(a), and range, use a temperature sensor with a * * * * * 63.995(a) under § 63.6(g). Where these minimum tolerance of 2.2 °C or 0.75 (b) Closed vent system inspection and standards reference another subpart, the percent of the temperature value, monitoring requirements. * * * cited provisions will be delegated whichever is larger. (4) For each bypass line, the owner or according to the delegation provisions (iii) For a cryogenic temperature operator shall comply with paragraph of the referenced subpart. range, use a temperature sensor with a (b)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section. (2) [Reserved] minimum tolerance of 2.2 °C or 2

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76445 percent of the temperature value, (iii) Check the pH meter’s calibration or ASTM D6420–99 for the regulated whichever is larger. on at least two points every 8 hours of material compounds present at the inlet (iv) Shield the temperature sensor process operation. of the control device. system from electromagnetic (iv) At least monthly, inspect all (E) To measure the TOC concentration interference and chemical components for integrity and all of the outlet vent stream, use Method contaminants. electrical connections for continuity. 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, (v) If a chart recorder is used, it must * * * * * according to the procedures in have a sensitivity in the minor division 6. Section 63.997 is amended by: paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(E)(1) through (4) of of at least 11 °C. a. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii); this section. (vi) Perform an electronic calibration b. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii) (1) Calibrate the instrument on the at least semiannually according to the introductory text; predominant regulated material procedures in the manufacturer’s c. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(D); compound. owners manual. Following the d. Adding paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(E); (2) The test results are acceptable if electronic calibration, conduct a e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iv) the response from the high level temperature sensor validation check in introductory text; calibration gas is at least 20 times the which a second or redundant f. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(B)(2) standard deviation for the response from temperature sensor placed nearby the and (3); and the zero calibration gas when the process temperature sensor must yield a g. Adding paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(F) instrument is zeroed on its most reading within 16.7 °C of the process through (K). sensitive scale. temperature sensor’s reading. The revisions and additions read as (3) The span value of the analyzer (vii) Conduct calibration and follows: must be less than 100 parts per million validation checks any time the sensor § 63.997 Performance test and compliance by volume. exceeds the manufacturer’s specified assessment requirements for control (4) Report the results as carbon, maximum operating temperature range devices. calculated according to Equation 25A–1 or install a new temperature sensor. * * * * * of Method 25A. (viii) At least monthly, inspect all (e) * * * (iv) Percent reduction calculation. To components for integrity and all (2) * * * determine compliance with a percent electrical connections for continuity, (ii) Gas volumetric flow rate. The gas reduction requirement, the owner or oxidation, and galvanic corrosion. volumetric flow rate shall be operator shall use Method 18, 25, or (9) For each pressure measurement determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as device, the owner or operator must meet 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix applicable. Alternatively, any other the requirements in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) A, as appropriate. method or data that have been validated through (vii) of this section. (iii) Total organic regulated material according to the applicable procedures (i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or or TOC concentration. To determine in Method 301 of appendix A to this as close to a position that provides a compliance with a parts per million by part may be used. The procedures representative measurement of the volume total organic regulated material specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(A) pressure. or TOC limit, the owner or operator through (K) of this section shall be used (ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating shall use Method 18 or 25A of 40 CFR to calculate percent reduction pressure, vibration, and internal and part 60, appendix A, as applicable. efficiency. external corrosion. Alternatively, any other method or data * * * * * (iii) Use a gauge with a minimum that have been validated according to (F) To measure inlet and outlet tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a the applicable procedures in Method concentrations of total organic regulated transducer with a minimum tolerance of 301 of appendix A to this part may be material, use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 1 percent of the pressure range. used. The procedures specified in 60, appendix A, or ASTM D6420–99 (iv) Check pressure tap pluggage paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A) through (E) of (incorporated by reference as specified daily. this section shall be used to calculate in § 63.14). In conducting the (v) Using a manometer, check gauge parts per million by volume performance test, collect and analyze calibration quarterly and transducer concentration, corrected to 3 percent samples as specified in Method 18 or calibration monthly. oxygen if a combustion device is the ASTM D6420–99. You must collect (vi) Conduct calibration checks any control device and supplemental samples simultaneously at the inlet and time the sensor exceeds the combustion air is used to combust the outlet of the control device. If the manufacturer’s specified maximum emissions. performance test is for a combustion operating pressure range or install a new * * * * * control device, you must first determine pressure sensor. (D) To measure the total organic which regulated material compounds (vii) At least monthly, inspect all regulated material concentration at the are present in the inlet gas stream (i.e., components for integrity, all electrical outlet of a combustion control device, uncontrolled emissions) using process connections for continuity, and all use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, knowledge or the screening procedure mechanical connections for leakage. appendix A, or ASTM D6420–99 described in Method 18. Quantify the (10) For each pH measurement device, (incorporated by reference). For a emissions for the regulated material the owner or operator must meet the combustion control device, you must compounds present in the inlet gas requirements in paragraphs (c)(10)(i) first determine which regulated material stream for both the inlet and outlet gas through (iv) of this section. compounds are present in the inlet gas streams for the combustion device. (i) Locate the pH sensor in a position stream using process knowledge or the (G) To determine inlet and outlet that provides a representative screening procedure described in concentrations of TOC, use Method 25 measurement of pH. Method 18. In conducting the of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Measure (ii) Ensure the sample is properly performance test, analyze samples the total gaseous non-methane organic mixed and representative of the fluid to collected at the outlet of the combustion (TGNMO) concentration of the inlet and be measured. control device as specified in Method 18 outlet vent streams using the procedures

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76446 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules of Method 25. Use the TGNMO and the condition in paragraph Subpart UUÐ[Amended] concentration in Equations 4 and 5 of (e)(2)(iv)(K)(1) or (2) of this section is paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) of this section. met. 8. Section 63.1019 is amended by (H) Method 25A may be used instead (1) The target compounds are listed in adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as of Method 25 to measure inlet and Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420–99, and the follows: outlet concentrations of TOC if the target concentration is between 150 § 63.1019 Applicability. condition in either paragraph parts per billion by volume and 100 (e)(2)(iv)(H)(1) or (2) of this section is parts per million by volume. * * * * * met. (2) The target compounds are not (f) Implementation and enforcement. (1) The concentration at the inlet to listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420– This subpart can be implemented and the control system and the required 99, but are potentially detected by mass enforced by the EPA, or a delegated level of control would result in exhaust spectrometry. In this case, an additional authority such as the applicable State, TGNMO concentrations of 50 parts per system continuing calibration check local, or tribal agency. If the EPA million by volume or less. after each run, as detailed in Section Administrator has delegated authority to (2) Because of the high efficiency of 10.5.3 of ASTM D6420–99, must be a State, local, or tribal agency, then that the control device, the anticipated followed, documented, and submitted agency has the authority to implement TGNMO concentration of the control with the performance test report even if and enforce this subpart. Contact the device exhaust is 50 parts per million by you do not use a moisture condenser or applicable EPA Regional Office to find volume or less, regardless of the inlet the compound is not considered out if this subpart is delegated to a State, concentration. soluble. local, or tribal agency. (I) To measure hydrogen halide and (g) In delegating implementation and * * * * * halogen concentrations, use Method 26 enforcement authority of this subpart to in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Use Subpart TTÐ[Amended] a State, local, or tribal agency under a minimum sampling time of 1 hour. subpart E of this part, the authorities Use Method 26A in lieu of Method 26 7. Section 63.1000 is amended by contained in paragraphs (g)(1) through when measuring emissions at the outlet adding paragraph (b) to read as follows: (5) of this section are retained by the of a scrubber where the potential for § 63.1000 Applicability. EPA Administrator and are not mist carryover exists. transferred to the State, local, or tribal (J) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas * * * * * agency. stream to the control device contains (b) Implementation and enforcement. (1) Approval of alternatives to the formaldehyde, you must conduct This subpart can be implemented and non-opacity emissions standards in emissions testing according to enforced by the EPA, or a delegated §§ 63.1022 through 62.1034, under paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(J)(1) or (2) of this authority such as the applicable State, § 63.6(g), and the standards for quality section. local, or tribal agency. If the EPA improvement programs in § 63.1035. (1) If you elect to comply with a Administrator has delegated authority to Where these standards reference another percent reduction requirement and a State, local, or tribal agency, then that subpart, the cited provisions will be formaldehyde is the principal regulated agency has the authority to implement delegated according to the delegation material compound (i.e., greater than 50 and enforce this subpart. Contact the provisions of the referenced subpart. applicable EPA Regional Office to find percent of the regulated material (2) [Reserved] compounds in the stream by volume), out if this subpart is delegated to a State, (3) Approval of major alternatives to you must use Method 316 or 320 of local, or tribal agency. test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and appendix A to this part to measure (1) In delegating implementation and (f) and as defined in § 63.90. formaldehyde at the inlet and outlet of enforcement authority of this subpart to (4) Approval of major alternatives to the control device. Use the percent a State, local, or tribal agency under monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as reduction in formaldehyde as a subpart E of this part, the authorities defined in § 63.90. surrogate for the percent reduction in contained in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) total regulated material emissions. through (v) of this section are retained (5) Approval of major alternatives to (2) If you elect to comply with an by the EPA Administrator and are not recordkeeping and reporting under outlet total organic regulated material transferred to the State, local, or tribal § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. concentration or TOC concentration agency. Subpart WWÐ[Amended] limit, and the uncontrolled or inlet gas (i) Approval of alternatives to the non- stream to the control device contains opacity emissions standards in 9. Section 63.1067 is added to read as greater than 10 percent (by volume) §§ 63.1003 through 63.1015, under follows: formaldehyde, you must use Method § 63.6(g). Where these standards 316 or 320 of appendix A to this part to reference another subpart, the cited § 63.1067 Implementation and separately determine the formaldehyde provisions will be delegated according enforcement. concentration. Calculate the total to the delegation provisions of the (a) This subpart can be implemented organic regulated material concentration referenced subpart. and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated or TOC concentration by totaling the (ii) [Reserved] authority such as the applicable State, formaldehyde emissions measured (iii) Approval of major alternatives to local, or tribal agency. If the EPA using Method 316 or 320 and the other test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and Administrator has delegated authority to regulated material compound emissions (f) and as defined in § 63.90. a State, local, or tribal agency, then that measured using Method 18 or 25/25A. (iv) Approval of major alternatives to agency has the authority to implement (K) You may use ASTM D6420–99 monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as and enforce this subpart. Contact the (incorporated by reference as specified defined in § 63.90. applicable EPA Regional Office to find in § 63.14) in lieu of Method 18 of 40 (v) Approval of major alternatives to out if this subpart is delegated to a State, CFR part 60, appendix A, if a minimum recordkeeping and reporting under local, or tribal agency. of one sample/analysis cycle is § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. (b) In delegating implementation and completed at least every 15 minutes, (2) [Reserved] enforcement authority of this subpart to

VerDate 112000 19:58 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76447 a State, local, or tribal agency under (3) Approval of major alternatives to b. Adding four entries in alphabetical subpart E of this part, the authorities test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and order and two footnotes to Table 1; contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (f) and as defined in § 63.90. c. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(ii), (g)(2), (5) of this section are retained by the (4) Approval of major alternatives to and (g)(5) and EPA Administrator and are not monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as d. Adding paragraph (g)(6). transferred to the State, local, or tribal defined in § 63.90. The revisions and additions read as agency. (5) Approval of major alternatives to follows: recordkeeping and reporting under (1) Approval of alternatives to the § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. § 63.1100 Applicability. non-opacity emissions standards in (a) General. This subpart applies to §§ 63.1062 and 63.1063(a) and (b) for Subpart YYÐ[Amended] source categories and affected sources alternative means of emission 10. Section 63.1100 is amended by: specified in § 63.1103(a) through (h). limitation, under § 63.6(g). a. Revising the first sentence of *** (2) [Reserved] paragraph (a); * * * * *

TABLE 1 TO § 63.1100(A).ÐSOURCE CATEGORY MACT a APPLICABILITY

Waste- Source category Storage Process Transfer Equipment water Other Source category MACT vessels vents racks leaks streams requirements

******* Carbon Black Production ...... No ...... Yes ...... No ...... No ...... No ...... No ...... § 63.1103(f) Cyanide Chemicals Manufac- Yes ...... Yes ...... Yes ...... Yes ...... Yes ...... No ...... § 63.1103(g) turing.

******* Ethylene Production ...... Yes ...... Yes ...... Yes ...... Yes ...... Yes ...... Yes c ...... § 63.1103(e) *******

Spandex Production ...... Yes ...... Yes ...... No ...... No ...... No ...... Yes d ...... § 63.1103(h)

******* c Heat exchange systems as defined in § 63.1103(e)(2). d Fiber spinning lines.

* * * * * Compliance Status report required by (SOCMI) source, and a single (g) * * * § 63.1110(a)(4). wastewater treatment facility treats both (ii) After the compliance dates Group 1 wastewaters and wastewater (1) * * * specified in § 63.1102 for an affected residuals from the source subject to this (ii) After the compliance dates source subject to this subpart, a process subpart and wastewaters from the specified in § 63.1102 for an affected vent that is part of an existing source SOCMI source, a certification by the source subject to this subpart, a storage that must be controlled according to the treatment facility that they will manage vessel that is part of an existing source process vent requirements of this and treat the waste in conformity with that must be controlled according to the subpart, and that must be controlled the specific control requirements set storage vessel requirements of this according to the process vent forth in §§ 63.133 through 63.147 will subpart, and that must be controlled requirements of subpart RRR or NNN of also be deemed sufficient to satisfy the according to the storage vessel 40 CFR part 60 is required to comply certification requirements for requirements of subpart Ka or Kb of 40 only with the process vent requirements wastewater treatment under this CFR part 60 is required to comply only of this subpart. subpart. This paragraph does not apply with the storage vessel requirements of * * * * * to the ethylene production source this subpart. (5) Overlap of subpart YY with other category. (2) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for wastewater for source (ii) After the compliance dates regulations for process vents. (i) After categories other than ethylene specified in § 63.1102 for an affected the compliance dates specified in production. (i) After the compliance source subject to this subpart, a § 63.1102 for an affected source subject dates specified in § 63.1102 for an wastewater stream that is subject to to this subpart, a process vent that is affected source subject to this subpart, a control requirements in the Benzene part of an existing source that must be wastewater stream that is subject to the Waste Operations NESHAP (subpart FF controlled according to the process vent wastewater requirements of this subpart of 40 CFR part 61) and this subpart is requirements of this subpart, and that and the wastewater requirements of required to comply with both rules. This must be controlled according to the subparts F and G of this part (the HON) paragraph (g)(5)(ii) does not apply to the process vent requirements of subpart G shall be deemed to be in compliance ethylene production source category. (the HON) of this part is in compliance with the requirements of this subpart if (6) Overlap of subpart YY with other with this subpart if it complies with it complies with either set of regulations for waste for the ethylene either the process vent requirements of requirements. In any instance where a production source category. this subpart or subpart G of this part, source subject to this subpart is (i) After the compliance date specified and the owner or operator has notified collocated with a Synthetic Organic in § 63.1102, a waste stream that is the Administrator in the Notification of Chemical Manufacturing Industry conveyed, stored, or treated in a

VerDate 112000 21:28 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 06DEP2 76448 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules wastewater stream management unit, § 63.1101 Definitions. paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as waste management unit, or wastewater * * * The definitions in this section appropriate. Proposal and effective treatment system that receives streams do not apply to waste requirements for dates are specified in Table 1 to this subject to both the control requirements ethylene production sources. section. of § 63.1103(e)(2) for ethylene * * * * * (1) Compliance dates for new and production sources and the provisions Process vent * * * This definition reconstructed sources. (i) The owner or of §§ 63.133 through 63.147 shall does not apply to ethylene production operator of a new or reconstructed comply as specified in paragraphs sources. Ethylene manufacturing affected source that commences (g)(6)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. process vents are defined in construction or reconstruction after the Compliance with the provisions of this § 63.1103(e)(2). proposal date, and that has an initial paragraph (g)(6)(i) shall constitute * * * * * startup before the effective date of compliance with the requirements of Shutdown means the cessation of standards for an affected source, shall this subpart for that waste stream. operation of a regulated source and comply with this subpart no later than equipment required or used to comply the applicable effective date in Table 1 (A) Comply with the provisions in with this subpart, or the emptying and to this section. §§ 63.133 through 63.137 and 63.140 for degassing of a storage vessel. For the (ii) The owner or operator of a new or all equipment used in the storage and purposes of this subpart, shutdown reconstructed affected source that has conveyance of the waste stream. includes, but is not limited to, periodic an initial startup after the applicable (B) Comply with the provisions in maintenance, replacement of effective date in Table 1 to § 63.1102 §§ 63.1103(e), 63.138, and 63.139 for the equipment, or repair. Shutdown does shall comply with this subpart upon treatment and control of the waste not include the routine rinsing or startup of the source. stream. washing of equipment in batch (iii) The owner or operator of an affected source that commences (C) Comply with the provisions in operation between batches. Shutdown construction or reconstruction after the §§ 63.143 through 63.148 for monitoring includes the decoking of ethylene proposal date, but before the effective and inspections of equipment and for manufacturing process unit furnaces. date in Table 1 to § 63.1102, shall recordkeeping and reporting * * * * * Total organic compounds or (TOC) comply with this subpart no later than requirements. The owner or operator is the date 3 years after the effective date not required to comply with the means the total gaseous organic compounds (minus methane and if the conditions in paragraphs monitoring, recordkeeping, and ethane) in a vent stream, with the (a)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section are reporting requirements associated with concentrations expressed on a carbon met. the treatment and control requirements basis. (A) The promulgated standards are in §§ 61.355 through 61.357. * * * * * more stringent than the proposed (ii) After the compliance date 12. Section 63.1102 is revised to read standards. specified in § 63.1102, compliance with as follows: (B) The owner or operator complies § 63.1103(e) shall constitute compliance with this subpart as proposed during the with the Benzene Waste Operations § 63.1102 Compliance Schedule. 3-year period immediately after the NESHAP (subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61) (a) General requirements. Affected effective date of standards for the for waste streams that are subject to both sources, as defined in § 63.1103(a)(1)(i) affected source. the control requirements of for acetyl resins production; (2) Compliance dates for existing § 63.1103(e)(2) for ethylene production § 63.1103(b)(1)(i) for acrylic and sources. (i) The owner or operator of an sources and the control requirements of monacrylic fiber production; existing affected source shall comply 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF. § 63.1103(c)(1)(i) for hydrogen fluoride with the requirements of this subpart production; § 63.1103(d)(1)(i) for within 3 years after the effective date of 11. Section 63.1101 is amended by: polycarbonate production; standards for the affected source. a. Adding a sentence at the end of the § 63.1103(e)(1)(i) for ethylene (ii) The owner or operator of an area introductory text; production; § 63.1103(f)(1)(i) for carbon source that increases its emissions of (or b. Adding a sentence to the end of the black production; § 63.1103(g)(1)(i) for its potential to emit) HAP such that the definition of ‘‘process vent;’’ cyanide chemicals manufacturing; or source becomes a major source shall be § 63.1103(h)(1)(i) for spandex subject to the relevant standards for c. Revising the definitions of production shall comply with the existing sources under this subpart. ‘‘shutdown’’ and ‘‘total organic appropriate provisions of this subpart Such sources shall comply with the compounds.’’ and the subparts referenced by this relevant standards within 3 years of The revisions read as follows: subpart according to the schedule in becoming a major source.

TABLE 1 TO § 63.1102.ÐSOURCE CATEGORY PROPOSAL AND EFFECTIVE DATES

Source category Proposal date Effective date

1. Acetal Resins Production ...... October 14, 1998 ...... June 29, 1999. 2. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production ..... October 14, 1998 ...... June 29, 1999. 3. Hydrogen Fluoride Production ...... October 14, 1998 ...... June 29, 1999. 4. Polycarbonate Production ...... October 14, 1998 ...... June 29, 1999. 5. Ethylene Production ...... December 6, 2000 ...... [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL SUBPART IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 6. Carbon Black Production ...... December 6, 2000 ...... [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL SUBPART IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 7. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing ...... December 6, 2000 ...... [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL SUBPART IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76449

TABLE 1 TO § 63.1102.ÐSOURCE CATEGORY PROPOSAL AND EFFECTIVE DATESÐContinued

Source category Proposal date Effective date

8. Spandex Production ...... December 6, 2000 ...... [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL SUBPART IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

* * * * * (H) Transfer racks, loading arms, or include an entire recirculating or once- 13. Section 63.1103 is amended by loading hoses that only transfer liquids through cooling system. adding paragraphs (e) through (h), and containing organic HAP as impurities. Transfer rack means the collection of adding Tables 7 through 10 as follows: (I) Transfer racks, loading arms, or loading arms and loading hoses, at a loading hoses that vapor balance during single loading rack, that are associated § 63.1103 Source category-specific all transfer operations. with an ethylene manufacturing process applicability, definitions, and requirements. (iii) Compliance schedule. The unit subject to this subpart and are used * * * * * compliance schedule for affected to fill tank trucks and/or railcars with (e) Ethylene production applicability, sources as defined in paragraph (e)(1)(i) organic HAP. Transfer rack includes the definitions, and requirements—(1) of this section is specified in § 63.1102. associated pumps, meters, shutoff Applicability.—(i) Affected source. For (2) Definitions. Ethylene valves, relief valves, and other piping the ethylene production (as defined in manufacturing process vent means a gas and valves. Transfer rack does not paragraph (e)(2) of this section) source stream containing greater than 0.005 include racks, arms, or hoses that category, the affected source shall weight-percent and 20 parts per million contain organic HAP only as impurities; comprise all emission points listed in by volume HAP that is continuously or racks, arms, or hoses that vapor paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) through (F) of discharged during operation of an balance during all loading operations. this section that are associated with an ethylene manufacturing process unit, as Waste means any material resulting ethylene manufacturing process unit defined in this section. Ethylene from industrial, commercial, mining, or located at a major source, as defined in manufacturing process vents are gas agricultural operations, or from section 112(a) of the Act. streams that are discharged to the community activities, that is discarded (A) All storage vessels (as defined in atmosphere (or the point of entry into a or is being accumulated, stored, or § 63.1101) that store liquids containing control device, if any) either directly or physically, chemically, thermally, or organic HAP. after passing through one or more biologically treated prior to being (B) All process vents (as defined in recovery devices. Ethylene discarded, recycled, or discharged. paragraph (e)(2) of this section) from manufacturing process vents do not Waste stream means the waste continuous unit operations. include relief valve discharges; gaseous generated by a particular process unit, (C) All transfer racks (as defined in streams routed to a fuel gas system; product tank, or waste management paragraph (e)(2) of this section) that load leaks from equipment regulated under unit. The characteristics of the waste HAP-containing material. this subpart; episodic or nonroutine stream (e.g., flow rate, HAP (D) Equipment (as defined in releases such as those associated with concentration, water content) are determined at the point of waste § 63.1101) that contains or contacts startup, shutdown, and malfunction; generation. Examples of a waste stream organic HAP. and in situ sampling systems (online analyzers). include process wastewater, product (E) All waste streams (as defined in Ethylene manufacturing process unit tank drawdown, sludge and slop oil paragraph (e)(2) of this section) means a process unit that is specifically removed from waste management units, associated with the ethylene production utilized for the production of ethylene/ and landfill leachate. process. propylene, including all separation and (3) Requirements. Table 7 to this (F) All heat exchange systems (as purification processes. section specifies the ethylene defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this Ethylene production means the production source category section) associated with the ethylene process by which ethylene/propylene is requirements for new and existing production process. produced as a product or an sources. The owner or operator must (ii) Exceptions. The emission points intermediate by either a pyrolysis control organic HAP emissions from listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)(A) through process (hydrocarbons subjected to high each affected source emission point by (I) of this section are in the ethylene temperatures in the presence of steam) meeting the applicable requirements production source category but are not or separation from a petroleum refining specified in Table 7 to § 63.1103. An subject to the requirements of paragraph stream. The ethylene production owner or operator must perform the (e)(3) of this section. process includes the separation of applicability assessment procedures and (A) Equipment that is located within ethylene/propylene from associated methods for process vents specified in an ethylene manufacturing process unit streams such as products made from § 63.1104, excluding paragraphs (d), (g), that is subject to this subpart but does compounds composed of four carbon (h), (i), (j), (l)(1), and (n). An owner or not contain organic HAP. atoms (C4), pyrolysis gasoline, and operator must perform the applicability (B) Stormwater from segregated pyrolysis fuel oil. The ethylene assessment procedures and methods for sewers. production process does not include the equipment leaks specified in § 63.1107. (C) Water from fire-fighting and manufacture of synthetic organic General compliance, recordkeeping, and deluge systems in segregated sewers. chemicals such as the production of reporting requirements are specified in (D) Spills. butadiene from the C4 stream and §§ 63.1108 through 63.1112. (E) Water from safety showers. aromatics from pyrolysis gasoline. Minimization of emissions from startup, (F) Water from testing of deluge Heat exchange system means any shutdown, and malfunctions must be systems. cooling tower system or once-through addressed in the startup, shutdown, and (G) Vessels storing organic liquids cooling water system (e.g., river or pond malfunction plan required by § 63.1111; that contain organic HAP as impurities. water). A heat exchange system can the plan must also establish reporting

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76450 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules and recordkeeping of such events. means of emission limitations are Procedures for approval of alternate specified in § 63.1113.

TABLE 7 TO § 63.1103.ÐWHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE AN ETHYLENE PRODUCTION EXISTING OR NEW AFFECTED SOURCE?

If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *

1. A storage vessel (as defined in § 63.1101) The maximum true vapor pressure of total or- a. Fill the vessel through a submerged pipe; that stores liquid containing organic HAP. ganic HAP is ≥3.4 kilopascals but <76.6 or kilopascals and b. Comply with the requirements for storage the capacity of the vessel is ≥4 cubic meters vessels with capacities ≥95 cubic meters. but <95 cubic meters. 2. A storage vessel (as defined in § 63.1101) The maximum true vapor pressure of total or- a. Comply with the requirements of subpart that stores liquid containing organic HAP. ganic HAP is ≥3.4 kilopascals but <76.6 WW of this part; or kilopascals; and b. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by the capacity of the vessel is ≥95 cubic meters 98 weight-percent by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any com- bination of control devices meeting the re- quirements of subpart SS of this part, as specified in § 63.982(a)(1). 3. A storage vessel (as defined in § 63.1101) The maximum true vapor pressure of total or- Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 98 that stores liquid containing organic HAP. ganic HAP is ≥76.6 kilopascals. weight-percent by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any com- bination of control devices meeting the re- quirements of subpart SS of this part, as specified in § 63.982(a)(1). 4. A process vent (as defined in paragraph The vent stream has an average flow rate ≥ Reduce emissions of organic HAP by 98 (e)(2) of this section) from continuous unit 0.011 scmm; and weight-percent; or reduce organic HAP or operations. the vent stream has a total organic HAP con- TOC to a concentration of 20 parts per mil- centration ≥50 parts per million by volume. lion by volume; whichever is less stringent, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control de- vices meeting the requirements of subpart SS of this part, as specified in § 63.982(a)(2). 5. A transfer rack (as defined in paragraph Materials loaded have a true vapor pressure a. Reduce emissions of organic HAP by 98 (e)(2) of this section). of total organic HAP ≥3.4 kilopascals; and weight-percent; or reduce organic HAP or ≥ 76 cubic meters per day (averaged over any TOC to a concentration of 20 parts per mil- consecutive 30-day period) of HAP-con- lion by volume; whichever is less stringent, taining material is loaded. by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control de- vices as specified in § 63.1105; or process piping designed to collect the HAP- containing vapors displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route it to a process, a fuel gas system, or a vapor balance system, as specified in § 63.1105. 6. Equipment (as defined in § 63.1101) that The equipment contains or contacts ≥5 Comply with the requirements of subpart UU contains or contacts organic HAP. weight-percent organic HAP; and of this part. the equipment is in service ≥300 hours per year; and the equipment is not in vacuum service ...... 7. Processes that generate process wastewater The wastewater contains any of the following Comply with the waste requirements of sub- or maintenance wastewater (as defined in HAP: Benzene, cumene, ethyl benzene, part XX of this part. For ethylene manufac- paragraph (e)(2) of this section). hexane, methyl ethyl ketone, naphthalene, turing process unit waste stream require- phenol, styrene, toluene, o-xylene, m-xy- ments, words have the meanings specified lene, p-xylene, or 1,3-butadiene. in subpart XX. 8. A heat exchange system (as defined in para- ...... Comply with the heat exchange system re- graph (e)(2) of this section). quirements of subpart XX of this part.

(f) Carbon black production source shall also include all waste defined in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this applicability, definitions, and management units, maintenance section, is specified in § 63.1102. requirements—(1) Applicability—(i) wastewater, and equipment components (2) Definitions. Affected source. For the carbon black that contain or contact HAP that are Carbon black production means the production source category (as defined associated with the carbon black production of carbon black by either the in paragraph (f)(2) of this section), the production process unit. furnace, thermal, acetylene, or affected source shall include each (ii) Compliance schedule. The lampblack processes. carbon black production process unit compliance schedule for the carbon Carbon black production process unit located at a major source, as defined in black production affected source, as means the equipment assembled and section 112(a) of the Act. The affected connected by hard-piping or duct work

VerDate 112000 20:18 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76451 to process raw materials to manufacture, Dryer means a rotary-kiln dryer that is (3) Requirements. Table 8 of this store, and transport a carbon black heated externally and is used to dry wet section specifies the carbon black product. For the purposes of this pellets in the wet pelletization process. production standards for existing and subpart, a carbon black production Main unit filter means the filter that new sources. Applicability assessment process unit includes reactors and separates the carbon black from the procedures and methods are specified in associated operations; associated tailgas. § 63.1104. An owner or operator of an affected source is not required to recovery devices; and any feed, Miscellaneous process vents means all perform applicability tests, or other intermediate and product storage process vents associated with a carbon applicability assessment procedures if vessels, product transfer racks, and black production process unit other they opt to comply with the most connected ducts and piping. A carbon than the main unit filter, process filter, stringent requirements for an applicable black production process unit includes purge filter, and dryer process vents. pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure emission point pursuant to this subpart. Process filter means the filter that General compliance, recordkeeping, and relief devices, sampling connection separates the carbon black from the reporting requirements are specified in systems, open-ended valves or lines, conveying air. §§ 63.1108 through 63.1112. Procedures valves, connectors, instrumentation Purge filter means the filter that for approval of alternative means of systems, and control devices or systems. separates the carbon black from the emission limitations are specified in dryer exhaust. § 63.1113.

TABLE 8 TO § 63.1103.ÐWHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE A CARBON BLACK PRODUCTION EXISTING OR NEW AFFECTED SOURCE?

If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *

A main unit filter process vent ...... The HAP concentration of the emission a. Reduce emissions of total HAP by using a stream is equal to or greater than 260 parts flare meeting the requirements of subpart per million by volume a. SS of this part; or b. Reduce emissions of total HAP by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, whichever is less stringent, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of subpart SS of this part, as specified in § 63.982(a)(2). a The weight-percent organic HAP is determined according to the procedures specified in § 63.1104(e).

(g) Cyanide chemicals manufacturing or is shipped offsite. If raw hydrogen transport a cyanide chemicals product. applicability, definitions, and cyanide is reacted with sodium A cyanide chemicals manufacturing requirements—(1) Applicability—(i) hydroxide to form sodium cyanide, process unit may be any one of the Affected source. For the cyanide prior to the refining process, the unit following: an Andrussow process unit, a chemicals manufacturing source operation where sodium cyanide is BMA process unit, a sodium cyanide category, the affected source shall formed is considered to be part of the process unit, or a Sohio hydrogen include each cyanide chemicals Andrussow process unit. cyanide process unit. For the purpose of manufacturing process unit located at a Blausaure Methane Anlage (BMA) this subpart, a cyanide chemicals major source, as defined in section process unit means a process unit that manufacturing process unit includes 112(a) of the Act. The affected source produces hydrogen cyanide by reacting reactors and associated unit operations; shall also include all waste management methane and ammonia over a platinum associated recovery devices; and any units, maintenance wastewater, and catalyst. A BMA process unit begins at feed, intermediate and product storage equipment (as defined in § 63.1101) that the point at which raw materials are vessels, product transfer racks, and contain or contact cyanide chemicals stored and ends at the point at which connected ducts and piping. A cyanide that are associated with the cyanide refined hydrogen cyanide is used as a chemicals manufacturing process unit chemicals manufacturing process unit. raw material in a downstream process or includes pumps, compressors, agitators, (ii) Compliance schedule. The is shipped offsite. If raw hydrogen pressure relief devices, sampling compliance schedule for the affected cyanide is reacted with sodium connection systems, open-ended valves source, as defined in paragraph (f)(1)(i) hydroxide to form sodium cyanide, or lines, valves, connectors, of this section, is specified in § 63.1102. prior to the refining process, the unit instrumentation systems, and control (2) Definitions. operation where sodium cyanide is devices or systems. Andrussow process unit means a formed is considered to be part of the Cyanide chemicals product means process unit that produces hydrogen BMA process unit. either hydrogen cyanide or sodium cyanide by reacting methane and Byproduct means a chemical that is cyanide. ammonia in the presence of oxygen over produced coincidentally during the Dry-end process vent means a process a platinum/rhodium catalyst. An production of another chemical. vent originating from the drum filter or Andrussow process unit begins at the Cyanide chemicals manufacturing any other unit operation in the dry end point at which the raw materials are process unit or CCMPU means the of a sodium cyanide manufacturing stored and ends at the point at which equipment assembled and connected by process unit. For the purposes of this refined hydrogen cyanide is utilized as hard-piping or duct work to process raw subpart, the dry end of the sodium a raw material in a downstream process materials to manufacture, store, and cyanide process unit begins in the unit

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 76452 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules operation where water is removed from sodium hydroxide to form sodium subpart, the wet end of the sodium the sodium cyanide, usually in the cyanide prior to the refining process, the cyanide process unit begins at the point drum filter, and ends when the sodium unit operation where sodium cyanide is at which the raw materials are stored cyanide is used as a raw material in a formed is not considered to be part of and ends just prior to the unit operation downstream process, or is shipped the sodium cyanide process unit. For where water is removed from the offsite. this type of process, the sodium cyanide sodium cyanide, usually in the drum Raw hydrogen cyanide means process unit begins at the point that the filter. hydrogen cyanide that has not been aqueous sodium cyanide stream leaves through the refining process. Raw the unit operation where the sodium (3) Requirements. Table 9 of this hydrogen cyanide usually has a cyanide is formed. section specifies the cyanide chemicals hydrogen cyanide concentration less Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit manufacturing standards applicable to than 10 percent. means a process unit that produces existing and new sources. Applicability Refined hydrogen cyanide means hydrogen cyanide as a byproduct of the assessment procedures and methods are hydrogen cyanide that has been through acrylonitrile production process when specified in § 63.1104. An owner or the refining process. Refined hydrogen acrylonitrile is manufactured using the operator of an affected source is not cyanide usually has a hydrogen cyanide Sohio process. A Sohio hydrogen required to perform applicability tests, concentration greater than 99 percent. cyanide process unit begins at the point or other applicability assessment Refining process means the collection the hydrogen cyanide leaves the unit procedures if they opt to comply with of equipment in a cyanide chemicals operation where the hydrogen cyanide the most stringent requirements for an manufacturing processing unit used to is separated from the acrylonitrile applicable emission point pursuant to concentrate raw hydrogen cyanide from (usually referred to as the light ends this subpart. General compliance, a concentration less than 10 percent to column). The Sohio hydrogen cyanide recordkeeping, and reporting refined hydrogen cyanide at a process unit ends at the point refined requirements are specified in §§ 63.1108 concentration greater than 99 percent. hydrogen cyanide is used as a raw through 63.1112. Procedures for Sodium cyanide process unit means a material in a downstream process or is approval of alternative means of process unit that produces sodium shipped offsite. If raw hydrogen cyanide emission limitations are specified in cyanide by reacting hydrogen cyanide is reacted with sodium hydroxide to § 63.1113. and sodium hydroxide via the form sodium cyanide, prior to the neutralization, or wet, process. A refining process, the unit operation (4) Determination of overall HAP sodium cyanide process unit begins at where sodium cyanide is formed is emissions reductions for a process unit. the unit operation where refined considered to be part of the Sohio (i) The owner or operator shall hydrogen cyanide is reacted with hydrogen cyanide process unit. determine the overall HAP emissions sodium hydroxide and ends at the point Wet-end process vent means a process reductions for process vents in a process the solid sodium cyanide product is vent originating from the reactor, unit using Equation 1 of this section. shipped offsite or used as a raw material crystallizer, or any other unit operation The overall organic HAP emissions in a downstream process. If raw in the wet end of the sodium cyanide reductions shall be determined for all hydrogen cyanide is reacted with process unit. For the purposes of this process vents in the process unit.

 n  R    ∑()E i  unc, i 100 RED =  i=1  ∗ 100 (Eq. 1) CCMPU  n m  +  ∑()EEunc,, i∑() unc j   i=1 j=1 

Where: in accordance with paragraph device in accordance with the

REDCCMPU = Overall HAP emission (g)(4)(ii) of this section. provisions of § 63.988(b)(2), for which a reduction for the group of process Eunc,j = Uncontrolled HAP emissions performance test has not been vents in the CCMPU, percent. from process vent j that is not conducted, the control efficiency shall Eunc,i = Uncontrolled HAP emissions controlled by using a combustion, be assumed to be 98 percent. recovery, or recapture device, kg/hr. from process vent i that is (B) If the process vent is controlled m = Number of process vents in the controlled by using a combustion, using a combustion, recovery, or process unit that are not controlled recovery, or recapture device, kg/hr. recapture device for which a by using a combustion, recovery, or n = Number of process vents in the performance test has been conducted in recapture device. process unit that are controlled by accordance with the provisions of using a combustion, recovery, or (ii) The control efficiency, Ri, shall be § 63.997, the control efficiency shall be recapture device. assigned as specified in paragraph the efficiency determined from the Ri = Control efficiency of the (g)(4)(i)(A) or (B) of this section. performance test. combustion, recovery, or recapture (A) If the process vent is controlled device used to control HAP using a flare in accordance with the emissions from vent i, determined provisions of § 63.987, or a combustion

VerDate 112000 21:28 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76453

TABLE 9 TO § 63.1103.ÐWHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE A CYANIDE CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING EXISTING OR NEW AFFECTED SOURCE?

If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *

1. A storage vessel ...... The storage vessel contains refined hydrogen a. Reduce emissions of hydrogen cyanide by cyanide. using a flare meeting the requirements of § 63.982(b); or b. Reduce emissions of hydrogen cyanide by 98 weight-percent by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any com- bination of control devices meeting the re- quirements of § 63.982(c)(1) or (d). 2. One or more process vents from continuous ...... During all periods, except periods of startup, unit operations in an Andrussow or BMA shutdown, and malfunction, either: process unit. a. Reduce overall emissions of total HAP from the collection of process vents from contin- uous unit operations in the process unit by 99 weight-percent in accordance with para- graph (g)(4) of this section. Any control de- vice used to reduce emissions from one or more process vents from continuous unit operations in the process unit must meet the applicable requirements of § 63.982(a)(2); or b. Reduce emissions of total HAP from each process vent from a continuous unit oper- ation in the process unit by 99 weight-per- cent or a concentration of 20 parts per mil- lion by volume, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any com- bination of control devices meeting the re- quirements of § 63.982(c)(2) or (d). 3. One or more process vents from continuous ...... During periods of startup, shutdown, and mal- unit operations in an Andrussow or BMA function, either: process unit. a. Reduce emissions of total HAP from each process vent from a continuous unit oper- ation in the process unit by using a flare meeting the requirements of § 63.982(b); or b. Reduce emissions of total HAP from each process vent from a continuous unit oper- ation in the process unit by 98 weight-per- cent or a concentration of 20 parts per mil- lion by volume, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any com- bination of control devices meeting the re- quirements of § 63.982(c)(2) or (d). 4. One or more process vents from continuous ...... a. Reduce overall emissions of hydrogen cya- unit operations in a Sohio hydrogen cyanide nide from the collection of process vents process unit. from continuous unit operations in the proc- ess unit by 98 weight-percent in accordance with paragraph (g)(4) of this section. Any control device used to reduce emissions from one or more process vents from con- tinuous unit operations in the process unit must meet the applicable requirements specified in § 63.982(a)(2); or b. Reduce emissions of hydrogen cyanide from each process vent from a continuous unit operation in the process unit by using a flare meeting the requirements of § 63.982(b); or c. Reduce emissions of hydrogen cyanide from each process vent from a continuous unit operation in the process unit by 98 weight-percent or a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of § 63.982(c)(2) or (d).

VerDate 112000 20:11 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 06DEP2 76454 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 9 TO § 63.1103.ÐWHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE A CYANIDE CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING EXISTING OR NEW AFFECTED SOURCE?ÐContinued

If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *

5. One or more wet-end process vents, as de- ...... a. Reduce overall emissions of total HAP from fined in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, in a the collection of process vents from contin- sodium cyanide process unit. uous unit operations in the process unit by 98 weight-percent in accordance with para- graph (g)(4) of this section. Any control de- vice used to reduce emissions from one or more process vents from continuous unit operations in the process unit must meet the applicable requirements § 63.982(a)(2); or b. Reduce emissions of total HAP from each wet-end process vent in the process unit by using a flare meeting the requirements of § 63.982(b); or c. Reduce emissions of total HAP from each wet-end process vent in the process unit by 98 weight-percent or a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of § 63.982(c)(2) or (d). 6. One or more dry-end process vents, as de- ...... a. Reduce overall emissions of sodium cya- fined in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, in a nide from the collection of process vents sodium cyanide process unit. from continuous unit operations in the proc- ess unit by 98 weight-percent in accordance with paragraph (g)(4) of this section. Any control device used to reduce emissions from one or more process vents from con- tinuous unit operations in the process unit must meet the applicable requirements of § 63.982(a)(2); or b. Reduce emissions of sodium cyanide from each dry-end process vent in the process unit by 98 weight-percent by venting emis- sions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of § 63.982(c)(2) or (d). 7. A transfer rack ...... The transfer rack is used to load refined hy- a. Reduce emissions of hydrogen cyanide by drogen cyanide into tank trucks and/or rail using a flare meeting the requirements of cars. § 63.982(b); or b. Reduce emissions of hydrogen cyanide by 98 weight-percent or a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, whichever is less stringent, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements specified in § 63.982(c)(1), (c)(2), or (d). 8. A new cyanide chemicals manufacturing The process wastewater is from HCN purifi- Achieve a combined removal and control of process unit that generates process waste- cation, ammonia purification, or flare blow- HAP from the wastewater of 93 weight-per- water. down. cent. 9. A cyanide chemicals manufacturing process The maintenance wastewater contains hydro- Comply with the requirements of § 63.1106(b). unit that generates maintenance wastewater. gen cyanide or acetonitrile. 10. An item of equipment listed in The item of equipment meets the criteria Comply with the requirements in Table 35 of § 63.1106(c)(1). specified in § 63.1106(c)(1) through (3) and subpart G of this part. either (c)(4)(i) or (ii).. 11. Equipment, as defined under § 63.1101 ...... The equipment contains or contacts hydrogen Comply with either subpart TT or UU of this cyanide and operates equal to or greater part, with the exception that open-ended than 300 hours per year. lines that contain or contact hydrogen cya- nide are not to be capped.

(h) Spandex production applicability, paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of (B) All storage vessels (as defined in definitions, and requirements—(1) this section that are associated with a § 63.1101) that store liquids containing Applicability—(i) Affected source. For reaction spinning spandex production organic HAP. the spandex production (as defined in process unit located at a major source, (C) All spandex fiber spinning lines paragraph (h)(2) of this section) source as defined in section 112(a) of the Act. using a spinning solution having organic HAP. category, the affected source shall (A) All process vents (as defined in comprise all emission points listed in (ii) Exceptions. The emission points § 63.1101). listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) and (B)

VerDate 112000 20:11 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76455 of this section are in the spandex percent by mass of a segmented production source category production source category but are not polyurethane. requirements for new and existing subject to the requirements of paragraph Spandex production means the sources. An owner or operator must (h)(3) of this section. production of synthetic spandex fibers. perform the applicability assessment (A) Equipment that is located within Spandex production process unit procedures and methods for process a spandex production process unit that means a process unit that is specifically vents specified in § 63.1104, excluding is subject to this subpart but does not used for the production of synthetic paragraphs (b)(1), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), contain organic HAP. spandex fibers. (l)(1), and (n). General compliance, (B) Vessels storing organic liquids that Fiber spinning line means the group recordkeeping, and reporting contain organic HAP as impurities. of equipment and process vents requirements are specified in §§ 63.1108 (iii) Compliance schedule. The associated with spandex fiber spinning through 63.1112. Minimization of compliance schedule for affected operations. The fiber spinning line emissions from startup, shutdown, and sources, as defined in paragraph (h)(1)(i) includes the blending and dissolving malfunctions must be addressed in the of this section, is specified in paragraph tanks, spinning solution filters, spinning startup, shutdown, and malfunction (b) of § 63.1102. units, spin bath tanks, and the plan required by § 63.1111; the plan (2) Definitions. equipment used downstream of the spin must also establish reporting and Spandex or Spandex fiber means a bath to wash, draw, or dry on the wet recordkeeping of such events. manufactured synthetic fiber in which belt the spun fiber. Procedures for approval of alternate the fiber-forming substance is a long- (3) Requirements. Table 10 to this means of emission limitations are chain polymer comprised of at least 85 section specifies the spandex specified in § 63.1113.

TABLE 10 TO § 63.1103.ÐWHAT ARE MY REQUIREMENTS IF I OWN OR OPERATE A SPANDEX PRODUCTION PROCESS UNIT AT A NEW OR EXISTING SOURCE?

If you own or operate * * * And if * * * Then you must * * *

1. A storage vessel (as defined in § 63.1101) The maximum true vapor pressure of the or- a. Comply with the requirements of subpart that stores liquid containing organic HAP. ganic HAP is ≥ 3.4 kilopascals; and. WW of this part; or The capacity of the vessel is ≥ 47 cubic me- b. Reduce emissions of organic HAP by 95 ters. weight-percent by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any com- bination of control devices meeting the re- quirements of subpart SS of this part, as specified in § 63.982(a)(1). 2. A process vent ...... Reduce emissions of organic HAP by 95 weight-percent; or reduce organic HAP or TOC to a concentration of 20 parts per mil- lion by volume; whichever is less stringent, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control de- vices meeting the requirements of subpart SS of this part, as specified in § 63.982(a)(2). 3. A fiber spinning line ...... Operate the fiber spinning line such that emis- sions are captured and vented through a closed vent system to a control device that complies with the requirements of subpart SS of this part, as specified in § 63.982(a)(2). If a control device other than a flare is used, HAP emissions must be re- duced by 95 weight-percent; or total organic HAP or TOC must be reduced to a con- centration of 20 parts per million by volume, whichever is less stringent.

14. Section 63.1104 is amended by: § 63.1104 Process vents from continuous value calculations in paragraph (j) of unit operations: applicability assessment this section, shall be determined based a. Revising the last sentence of procedures and methods. paragraph (a); on paragraph (e)(1) or (k) of this section, (a) * * * The owner or operator of a or any other method or data that have b. Revising the first sentence of process vent is not required to been validated according to the protocol paragraph (e); determine the criteria specified for a in Method 301 of appendix A of 40 CFR c. Revising the first sentence of process vent that is being controlled in part 63. * * * paragraph (f)(1); accordance with the applicable weight- (f) * * * percent, TOC concentration, or organic (1) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or d. Revising the last sentence of HAP concentration requirement in 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as paragraph (k) introductory text; and § 63.1103. appropriate. * * * e. Revising the first sentence of * * * * * * * * * * paragraph (m)(2)(i) introductory text. (e) TOC or organic HAP (k) * * * If a process vent flow rate The revisions read as follows: concentration. The TOC or organic HAP or process vent organic HAP or TOC concentrations, used for TRE index concentration is being determined for

VerDate 112000 20:11 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 06DEP2 76456 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules comparison with the applicable flow system must be designed to route the (h) Vapor tightness procedures. For rate or concentration value presented in collected HAP vapors to the storage the purposes of demonstrating vapor the tables in § 63.1103 to determine vessel from which the liquid being tightness to determine compliance with control requirement applicability, loaded originated, or to another storage paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the engineering assessment may be used to vessel connected to a common header, procedures and equipment specified in determine the flow rate or concentration or to compress and route collected HAP paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) shall be used. for the representative operating vapors to a process. (1) The pressure test procedures conditions expected to yield the highest (b) Operating requirements. An owner specified in Method 27 of appendix A flow rate or concentration. or operator of a transfer rack shall to 40 CFR part 60. operate it in such a manner that (2) A pressure measurement device * * * * * ± (m) * * * emissions are routed through the that has a precision of 2.5 millimeters (2) Process change. equipment specified in paragraph (a) of of mercury (0.10 inch) or better and that (i) Whenever a process vent becomes this section. is capable of measuring above the subject to control requirements under (c) Control device operation. pressure at which the tank truck or this subpart as a result of a process Whenever HAP emissions are vented to railcar is to be tested for vapor tightness. (i) Recordkeeping. The owner or change, the owner or operator shall a control device used to comply with operator of a transfer rack shall record submit a report within 60 days after the the provisions of this subpart, such that the verification of DOT tank performance test or applicability control device shall be operating. certification or Method 27 of appendix assessment, whichever is sooner.* * * (d) Tank trucks and railcars. The A to 40 CFR part 60 testing required in * * * * * owner or operator shall load HAP- containing materials only into tank § 63.84(c) has been performed. Various 15. Section 63.1105 is added to read methods for the record of verification as follows: trucks and railcars that meet the requirement in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of can be used such as: A check off on a § 63.1105 Transfer racks. this section, and shall maintain the log sheet, a list of DOT serial numbers or Method 27 data, or a position (a) Design requirements. The owner or records specified in paragraph (i) of this description for gate security showing operator shall equip each transfer rack section. that the security guard will not allow with one of the control options listed in (1) Have a current certification in any trucks on-site that do not have the paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this accordance with the U.S. Department of appropriate documentation. section. Transportation (DOT) pressure test (1) A closed vent system designed to requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for * * * * * collect HAP-containing vapors tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for 16. Subpart YY is proposed to be displaced from tank trucks or railcars railcars; or amended by adding § 63.1114 to read as during loading and to route the (2) Have been demonstrated to be follows: collected vapors to a flare. The owner or vapor-tight within the preceding 12 § 63.1114 Implementation and operator must meet the requirements of months as determined by the enforcement. § 63.982(a)(3). procedures in paragraph (h) of this (a) This subpart can be implemented (2) A closed vent system designed to section. Vapor-tight means that the and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated collect HAP-containing vapors pressure in a truck or railcar tank will authority such as the applicable State, displaced from tank trucks or railcars not drop more than 750 pascals (0.11 local, or tribal agency. If the EPA during loading and to route the pound per square inch) within 5 Administrator has delegated authority to collected vapors to a control device minutes after it is pressurized to a a State, local, or tribal agency, then that other than a flare. The owner or operator minimum of 4,500 pascals (0.63 pound agency has the authority to implement must meet the requirements of per square inch). and enforce this subpart. Contact the § 63.982(a)(3). (e) Pressure relief device. The owner applicable EPA Regional Office to find (3) Process piping designed to collect or operator of a transfer rack subject to out if this subpart is delegated to a State, the HAP vapors displaced from tank the provisions of this subpart shall local, or tribal agency. trucks or railcars during loading and to ensure that no pressure relief device in (b) In delegating implementation and route the collected vapors to a process the loading equipment of each tank enforcement authority of this subpart to where the HAP vapors shall truck or railcar shall begin to open to a State, local, or tribal agency under predominantly meet one of, or a the atmosphere during loading. Pressure section 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the combination of, the ends specified in relief devices needed for safety purposes authorities contained in paragraphs paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this are not subject to the requirements of (b)(1) through (5) of this section are section or to a fuel gas system. The this paragraph. retained by the EPA Administrator and owner or operator must meet the (f) Compatible system. The owner or are not transferred to the State, local, or requirements of § 63.982(a)(3). operator of a transfer rack subject to the tribal agency. (i) Recycled and/or consumed in the provisions of this subpart shall load (1) Approval of alternatives to the same manner as a material that fulfills HAP-containing materials only to tank nonopacity emissions standards in the same function in that process; trucks or railcars equipped with a vapor § 63.1103(a)(3), (b)(3) through (5), (c)(3), (ii) Transformed by chemical reaction collection system that is compatible (d)(3), (e)(3), (f)(3), (g)(3) and (4), and into materials that are not HAP; with the transfer rack’s closed vent (h)(3) under § 63.6(g). Follow the (iii) Incorporated into a product; and/ system or process piping. requirements in § 63.1113 to request or (g) Loading while systems connected. permission to use an alternative means (iv) Recovered. The owner or operator of a transfer rack of emission limitation. Where these (4) Process piping designed to collect subject to this subpart shall load HAP- standards reference another subpart, the the HAP vapors displaced from tank containing material only to tank trucks cited provisions will be delegated trucks or railcars during loading and to or railcars whose collection systems are according to the delegation provisions route the collected vapors to a vapor connected to the transfer rack’s closed of the referenced subpart. balance system. The vapor balance vent system or process piping. (2) [Reserved]

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76457

(3) Approval of major alternatives to (4) Approval of major alternatives to (5) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as recordkeeping and reporting under (f) and as defined in § 63.90. defined in § 63.90. § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. [FR Doc. 00–29767 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560±50±P

VerDate 112000 14:53 Dec 05, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP2.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 06DEP2