National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Epoxy Resins Production and Non-nylon Polyamides Production

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-4881-6]

RIN 2060-AD97

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Epoxy

Resins Production and Non-nylon Polyamides Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed standard would limit emissions of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) from existing and new facilities that manufacture

polymers and resins produced from epichlorohydrin feedstock,

specifically, basic liquid epoxy resins (BLR) and non-nylon polyamide

resins, also known as wet strength resins (WSR). The proposed standards

implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act) amendments of 1990,

which require the Administrator to regulate emissions of hazardous air

pollutants listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The intent of these

standards is to protect the public by requiring new and existing major

sources to control emissions to the level achievable by the maximum

achievable control technology (MACT), taking into consideration the

cost of achieving such emission reductions, any nonair quality and

other air quality related health and environmental impacts, and energy

requirements.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 15, 1994.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a

public hearing by June 6, 1994, a public hearing will be held on June

15, 1994, beginning at 10 a.m. Persons interested in attending the

hearing should call Ms. Lina Hanzely at (919) 541-5673 to verify that a

hearing will be held.

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral

testimony must contact EPA by June 6, 1994, by contacting Ms. Lina

Hanzely, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch, (MD-13), U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,

telephone number (919) 541-5673.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air Docket Section (LE-131), Attention: Docket No. A-92-

37, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Background Information Document

The background information document (BID) for the proposed standard

may be obtained from the docket or from the U. S. EPA Library (MD-35),

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)

541-2777. Please refer to ``Emissions from Epoxy Resins Production and

Non-Nylon Polyamides Production--Background Information for Proposed

Standards'' EPA 453/R-94-033a.

Docket. Docket No. A-92-37, containing supporting information used

in developing the proposed standards, is available for public

inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, at EPA's Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall, room 1500, 1st

Floor, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the

standards, contact Mr. Randy McDonald at (919) 541-5402, Chemicals and

Petroleum Branch, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble

is organized as follows:

I. List of Source Categories

II. Background

III. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP) Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Source Categories to be Regulated

B. Pollutants to be Regulated

C. Affected Emission Points

D. Format of the Standards

E. Proposed Standards

F. Certification of Compliance

G. Monitoring Requirements

H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

V. Summary Of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts

A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP

B. Air Impacts

C. Water and Solid Waste Impacts

D. Energy Impacts

E. Cost Impacts

F. Economic Impacts

VI. Rationale

A. Selection of Emission Points to be Covered by the Standards

B. Designation of Sources

C. Selection of Basis and Level of Proposed Standards for

Existing Sources

D. Selection of Basis and Level of Proposed Standards for New

Sources

E. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards

F. Selection of Compliance and Performance Testing Provisions

and Monitoring Requirements

G. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

H. Operating Permit Program

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

B. Docket

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Miscellaneous

I. List of Source Categories

Section 112 of the amended Act requires that EPA evaluate and

control emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is achieved through

promulgation of emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f) and

work practice and equipment standards under section 112(h) for

categories of sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, EPA published an

initial list of major and area source categories to be regulated (57 FR

31576). Included on that list were major sources emitting HAP from

epoxy resins and non-nylon polyamides production.

The categories of major sources that would be affected by this

regulation are defined as the manufacture of basic liquid epoxy resins

(BLR) and resins made of epichlorohydrin (EPI) cross-linked non-nylon

polyamides, also known as wet strength resins (WSR). The BLR source

category does not include the manufacture of specialty epoxy resins

(epoxy resins that are not BLR) or the modification of epoxy resins

(BLR that are blended with solvents, reactive diluents, or other

resins). The WSR source category are those that are made with dibasic

esters, dicarboxylic acids, amines, and EPI. In developing the

background information to support the proposed standard, no reasons for

subcategorizing either of the source categories were identified.

Production methods used in the two source categories include both

batch and continuous operations. The sizes of the facilities range from

those that make several thousand pounds of resin per year (lb/yr) to

those that produce over 100 million lb/yr. Air emissions of HAP

compounds originate from breathing and working losses from storage

tanks, venting of process vessels, leaks from piping equipment used to

transfer HAP compounds (equipment leaks), and volatilization of HAP

from wastewater streams. Pollutants (HAP) emitted from the production

processes include EPI, methanol, and hydrochloric acid (HCl). Detailed

information describing manufacturing processes and emissions can be

found in ``Emissions from Epoxy Resins Production and Non- Nylon

Polyamides Production--Background Information for Proposed Standards''

(EPA 453/R-94-033a), Chapter 3.

As of 1990, only three U.S. companies were producing BLR. All three

of these facilities are considered to be major sources according to the

Act criterion of having the potential to emit 10 tons per year of any

one HAP or 25 tons per year of combined HAP. There are at least 17

facilities in the U.S. that manufacture WSR; of these, 9 are considered

major sources because they are co-located within larger chemical

manufacturing operations, based on the criteria mentioned above. The

proposed standard would apply to all major sources that produce BLR

and/or WSR. Area sources would not be subject to this standard.

II. Background

In 1989, EPA conducted a study that examined the use of

epichlorohydrin in industry. This study identified the BLR and WSR

industries as the major users of epichlorohydrin in the U.S.

Under section 112(c) of the Act, the Administrator is required to

publish and from time to time revise a list of source categories and

subcategories that emit one or more of the hazardous air pollutants

listed in section 112, as amended. Information from the study of

epichlorohydrin use in industry was used during the development of the

source category list. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published

the initial list of source categories, which includes epoxy resins

production and non-nylon polyamides production.

III. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP) Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection

Agency the authority to establish national standards to reduce air

emissions from sources that emit one or more HAP. Section 112(b)

contains a list of HAP to be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c)

directs the Agency to use this pollutant list to develop and publish a

list of source categories for which NESHAP will be developed; this list

was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).

The Agency must list all known categories and subcategories of ``major

sources'' (defined below) that emit one or more of the listed HAP. A

major source is defined in section 112 (a) as any stationary source or

group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under

common control that emits or has the potential to emit in the

aggregate, considering controls, 10 tons per year or more of any one

HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both

new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out

in section 112(d) of the Act. The statute requires the standards to

reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is

achievable for new or existing sources. This control level is referred

to as the ``maximum achievable control technology'' (MACT). The

selection of MACT must reflect consideration of the cost of achieving

the emission reduction, any nonair quality health and environmental

impacts, and energy requirements for control levels more stringent than

the floor (described below).

The MACT floor is the least stringent level for MACT standards. For

new sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory ``shall

not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in

practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the

Administrator'' (section 112(d)(3)). Existing source standards should

be no less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by

the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for categories

and subcategories with 30 or more sources or the average emission

limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources for categories or

subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (section 112(d)(3)).

In a March 9, 1994 Federal Register notice reopening the public

comment period for determination of ``MACT floor'' for NESHAP source

categories (59 FR 11018), the Agency considered more than one

interpretation of the statutory language concerning the MACT floor for

existing sources and solicited comment on them. The MACT floor decision

that the EPA will make on the basis of this March 9, 1994 notice will

have broad precedential effects, and will presumptively be followed by

the Agency in any rulemakings subsequently promulgated under Title III

of the Act. The MACT floor determinations proposed in today's

rulemaking may therefore be affected by the Agency's final

interpretation of ``MACT floor.''

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Source Categories To Be Regulated

The proposed standards would regulate HAP emissions from epoxy

resins production (facilities that produce BLR), and from non-nylon

polyamides production (facilities that produce WSR), that are

determined to be major sources. The standards would apply to existing

sources as well as new sources.

B. Pollutants To Be Regulated

Hazardous air pollutants emitted from existing BLR and wet strength

resin production processes include epichlorohydrin, methanol, and

hydrochloric acid. The proposed standards would regulate emissions of

these compounds, as well as any other HAP that may be emitted.

In addition, note that epichlorohydrin is listed under section

112(r) of the Act. The intent of section 112(r), Prevention of

Accidental Releases, is to focus on chemicals that pose a significant

hazard to the community should an accident occur, to prevent their

accidental release, and to minimize consequences should a release

occur. Epichlorohydrin, along with the other substances listed under

section 112(r)(3), is listed because it is known to cause, or may be

reasonably anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse

effects to human health or the environment (see 59 FR 4478, January 31,

1994). Sources that handle epichlorohydrin in greater quantities than

the established threshold quantity under section 112(r)(5) will be

subject to the risk management program requirements under Section

112(r)(7) (see 58 FR 54190, October 20, 1993).

C. Affected Emission Points

Emission points identified for BLR and wet strength resin

production include process vents, equipment leaks, storage tanks, and

wastewater.

D. Format of the Standards

The standards for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater for

existing facilities are presented in an emission limit format in the

units of pounds of HAP per 1 million pounds of product (lb HAP/MM lb

product). Facilities will have the option of using any control

technology or pollution prevention strategy, as long as the HAP

production-based emission limits are achieved. An emission limit format

cannot be used for the standard for new facilities because it would

identify a specific facility's production level, which is claimed as

confidential business information. Therefore, standards for new

facilities are in the equipment standard format. Facilities would have

to implement the controls specified in the standard, or demonstrate

equivalency, to achieve compliance.

The EPA solicits comments on the equipment standard format of the

standards for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater at new

facilities. In particular, the EPA solicits comments on whether

performance standards for vents, tanks, and wastewater at new

facilities can be used without compromising confidential business

information and whether operators can comply with performance standards

for vents, tanks, and wastewater at new facilities without compromising

confidential business information.

Standards for equipment leaks are specified for new and existing

BLR facilities, and are presented as an alternative standard for new

and existing wet strength resin facilities. Equipment leak standards

are in the form of equipment/work practice standards. Facilities would

be required to implement the program specified in the proposed

regulation to achieve compliance with the standard.

E. Proposed Standards

Table 1 summarizes the standards for existing BLR and WSR sources.

In each case, for purposes of determining compliance with the emission

requirements, the source was divided into two portions: (1) The

combination of process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater, and (2)

equipment leaks. The proposed standards for BLR production would

require existing facilities to limit emissions from all process vents,

storage tanks, and wastewater combined to a level at or below 130 lb

HAP/MM lb production. Existing BLR facilities would also be required to

implement the leak detection and repair (LDAR) program specified in the

Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart H).

The LDAR program specified under subpart H requires specific equipment

modifications and work practices that reduce emissions from equipment

leaks.

Table 1.--Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources

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

Wet strength resins

Basic liquid -----------------------------------

Emission source epoxy resins Equivalent

standard

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

Existing sources

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

(1) Process Emission limit of Emission limit No requirement.

vents, storage 130 lb/MM lb of 10 lb/MM lb

tanks, and product. product.

wastewater.

(2) Equipment Requirements of No requirement.. Requirements of

leaks. 40 CFR 63, 40 CFR 63,

subpart H. subpart H.

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

New sources

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

(1) Process (a) Route process (a) Control No requirement.

vents, storage vents and process vent

tanks and storage tank emissions w/

wastewater. vents to a water-cooled

common water condenser @ 25

scrubber w/ deg.C.

efficiency of 99

percent.

(b) Recirculate (b) Eliminate ................

scrubber liquor the production

back to process. of methanol by-

product in the

manufacturing

process

(c) Control (c) Eliminate ................

wastewater to the use of

99%. hydrochloric

acid in the

manufacturing

process

(2) Equipment Requirements of No requirement.. Requirements of

leaks. 40 CFR 63, 40 CFR 63,

subpart H. subpart H.

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

For new BLR facilities, the standards would be based on the

technology used by the best performing facility in the category for

process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater, which is the use of a 99

percent efficient water scrubber on all process vents coupled with

recirculation of the scrubber effluent to the process, and 99 percent

control of emissions from wastewater. As for existing facilities, new

facilities would be required to implement the LDAR program of subpart H

to control equipment leak emissions.

For existing wet strength resin facilities, the proposed standards

would require an emission limit of 10 lb HAP/MM lb product from process

vents, wastewater, and storage tanks combined. No emission limits or

equipment standards are required for equipment leaks; however,

facilities may elect to implement the subpart H LDAR program in lieu of

complying with the emission limit for process vents, storage tanks, and

wastewater, as this alternative would achieve a greater emission

reduction. Similar to BLR production, for new wet strength resin

facilities, the standards would be based on the technology used by the

best performing source in the category. This technology is the use of a

water-cooled condenser, from which the outlet gas temperature shall be

no higher than 25 deg.C, on the batch reactor and no methanol by-

product formation or hydrochloric acid usage, or the implementation of

the subpart H LDAR program to control equipment leak emissions.

F. Certification of Compliance

1. Existing sources

a. Process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points. To

determine compliance with the emission limit for process vents, storage

tanks, and wastewater combined, the owner or operator of an existing

BLR or WSR manufacturing facility would calculate the total emissions

per product produced by summing the production-based emission values

for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater according to the

following equation:

E=PV=ST=WW (1)

where:

E=Emissions, lb HAP/106 lb product

PV=Process vent emissions, lb HAP/106 lb product

ST=Storage tank emissions, lb HAP/106 lb product

WW=Wastewater emissions, lb HAP/106 lb product

The required calculation methods for each type of emission point are

described below for the BLR and WSR source categories.

i. BLR source category. For basic liquid resin production, tests

would be required to determine the flow rate and HAP concentration of

emissions from process vents and, where applicable, storage tank vents

that are combined with process vents. Data from three 1-hour tests

would be used to calculate an average HAP emission rate in pounds per

hour. Initial performance tests for uncontrolled streams or streams

controlled by devices other than flares and certain boilers and process

heaters would consist of measuring HAP concentration using the EPA

Method 18 or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Method 25A may

be used only if a single HAP compound greater than 50 percent of the

total organic HAP in the vent stream and that HAP compound is used for

calibration. Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is

specified for measuring vent stream flowrate.

To determine the production-based emission rate for process vents,

the owner or operator would calculate an hourly rate of production

based on production data for the previous year and the actual operating

hours during the same annual period. For each vent, the hourly emission

rate, determined from the average of three 1-hour tests, would be

divided by the hourly production rate (calculated as described above)

to determine the production-based emission rate for the vent. The sum

of production-based emission rates from all process vents (and storage

tank vents if manifolded with process vents) constitutes the first term

in the equation used to determine compliance. Because emissions are

divided by the annual production of the previous year, testing must

take place under operating conditions that represent the production

rate for the previous year.

Emissions from storage tanks not manifolded with process vents

would be calculated according to the methodology described in 40 CFR

63.150(f)(3). The annual emissions would be divided by the annual

production from the previous year to determine the production-based

emission rate from storage tanks.

Emissions from wastewater would be calculated according to the

methodology described in 40 CFR 63.150(f)(5). Monthly emissions

calculated using this methodology would be divided by a monthly

production rate, which would be calculated by dividing the annual

production rate for the previous year by 12. Testing is required by 40

CFR 163.150(f)(5) to determine wastewater stream parameters such as the

flow rate and HAP concentration. Because emissions would be divided by

a production rate calculated using production data for the previous

year, test conditions must reflect typical production for the previous

year.

ii. WSR source category. If a process uses a condenser to recover

HAP, emissions would be calculated for the purpose of determining

compliance using equations developed for batch operations, in lieu of

compliance tests. Testing would be required to determine the emission

rate from uncontrolled vents and vents controlled by devices other than

condensers. Testing requirements are the same as for the BLR source

category, except that testing would take place over the batch cycle,

rather than hourly. Likewise, the production-based emission rates used

in the equation to determine compliance would be calculated based on

emissions and production data obtained on a per-batch basis, not per-

hour as is the case for the BLR source category.

As with the BLR source category, storage tank emission calculations

would follow the methodology described in 40 CFR 63.150(f)(3). The

methodology of 40 CFR 63.150(f)(5) would be used to determine emissions

from wastewater.

b. Equipment leaks emission point. To determine compliance with the

standard for equipment leaks, BLR and WSR facilities would have to

demonstrate that an LDAR program meeting the requirements of 40 CFR

part 63, subpart H (40 CFR 63.160-63.183) is in place. This includes

performance of the test methods and procedures used to verify the

adequacy of monitoring equipment outlined in 40 CFR 63.180.

2. New Sources

a. BLR source category. Although the proposed standards for new BLR

sources are essentially equipment standards, control efficiencies are

required for the equipment specified in the standards. Therefore, in

addition to installing the equipment required by the standards, new BLR

facilities would be required to perform the appropriate EPA test

methods to demonstrate that the common water scrubber required to

control emissions from process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater is

achieving 99 percent control. The testing methodology described in 40

CFR 163.150(f)(5) would be required to demonstrate that wastewater

treatment systems are achieving 99 percent control.

b. WSR source category. The equipment standards for new WSR

facilities do not specify any control efficiencies that must be

achieved. Therefore, facilities would only be required to demonstrate

operation of a water-cooled condenser at an outlet temperature of 25

deg.C, that no methanol is being produced during the manufacturing

process, and that no hydrochloric acid is being used to produce WSR.

G. Monitoring Requirements

Monitoring is required by the proposed standards to determine

whether a BLR or wet strength resin process is in compliance. This

monitoring is done either by: (1) Continuously measuring outlet mass

flowrate and concentration, or by (2) continuously measuring a site-

specific operating parameter, the value of which is established by the

owner or operator during the initial compliance test. The operating

parameter value is defined as the minimum or maximum value established

for a control device or process parameter that, if achieved by itself

or in combination with one or more other operating parameter values,

determines that an owner or operator is complying with the applicable

emission limitation or standards. A summary of the monitoring

requirements of the proposed standards is provided in Table 2.

Table 2.--Monitoring Requirements

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

Emission source Parameter monitored Noncompliance

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

BLR process and

storage*:

Carbon adsorber Continuous measurement One-hour average outlet

controlled. of outlet HAP concentration is

concentration using greater than the

Method 25A if possible maximum concentration

or Method 18 if established during the

speciation necessary. compliance test.

Uncontrolled.... Continuous measurement One-hour average outlet

of outlet HAP concentration is

concentration using greater than the

Method 25A if possible maximum concentration

or Method 18 if established during the

speciation necessary. compliance test.

Condenser Continuous measurement One-hour average exhaust

controlled. of outlet gas gas temperature is

temperature. greater than the

maximum temperature

established during the

compliance test.

Scrubber Continuous measurement One-hour average

controlled. of scrubber liquid scrubber flowrate is

flowrate. below the minimum

flowrate established

during the compliance

test.

Flare controlled Continuous verification Loss of pilot flame.

of pilot flame presence

with heat sensing

device such as a UV

sensor or thermocouple.

Wastewater...... Flow rate, pH, and HAP Monitored values are

concentration measured outside the range

daily; TSS and BOD established during

measured biweekly. initial compliance.

All air Flow diversion: if Presence of flow

pollution bypass lines that could detected in the line,

control devices. divert flow from the rupture of the car-

control device to the seal, or removed of the

atmosphere exist flow lock-and-key must be

must be monitored reported in the

continuously or the quarterly reporting

line must be secured requirement of Sec.

with a car-seal or lock- 63.10. Occurrence does

and-key type not establish

configuration that is noncompliance.

inspected daily.

Wet strength resin

batch reactor:

Condenser Continuous measurement Average outlet gas

controlled. of outlet gas temperature over the

temperature during each step is greater than

step in batch process. the maximum temperature

established from

compliance

calculations.

Carbon adsorber Continuous measurement Average outlet HAP

controlled of outlet HAP concentration over the

Uncontrolled. concentration using step is greater than

Method 25A if possible the maximum value

or Method 18 if established during the

speciation necessary. compliance test.

Scrubber Measurement of average Average scrubber

controlled. outlet gas flowrate flowrate over the step

during each step in is below the acceptable

batch process. minimum flowrate

established during the

compliance test.

Wastewater...... pH, flow rate and HAP Monitored values are

concentration measured outside the range

daily; TSS and BOD established during

measured bi-weekly. compliance.

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

*Monitoring of emissions from storage tanks is required only if

emissions are combined with other tank or process emissions prior to

discharge to the atmosphere.

H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

The owner or operator of any BLR or wet strength resin source

subject to these standards would be required to fulfill all reporting

requirements outlined in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63.

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

A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP

These NESHAP would affect BLR and WSR facilities that are major

sources in themselves, or constitute a portion of a major source. There

are three existing manufacturers of BLR, all of which were assumed to

be major sources for the purpose of developing these standards. (Final

determination of major source status occurs as part of the compliance

determination process). Of the 17 existing facilities that manufacture

WSR, 9 were assumed to be considered major sources. The expected growth

rate for the BLR industry and the wet strength resin industry is

expected to be between 2 and 3 percent through 1995. Impacts associated

with the control options are presented in Table 3 and Table 4; the

options selected as proposed standards are footnoted.

Table 3.--Impacts of Meeting MACT Floors and Regulatory Alternatives for BLR Source Category

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

Incremental

Baseline Emission Energy burden, Wastewater Capital costs, Annual Cost cost

Regulatory option emissions, reduction, 106Btu/yr generated, $/1,000 costs, $ effectiveness, effectiveness,

Mg/yr Mg/yr gal/yr $/Mg $/Mg

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

MACT floor............................... 122 52 1.5 3,200,000 335 127,500 2,500 ..............

Regulatory Alternative 1a................ 122 95 1.5 3,200,000 410 140,000 1,500 300

Regulatory Alternative 2................. 122 97 1.5 3,200,000 419 152,000 1,600 6,000

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

aThis option was chosen as the standard.

Table 4.--Impacts of Meeting MACT Floors and Regulatory Alternatives for Wet Strength Resin Source Category

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

Incremental

Baseline Emission Energy Wastewater Capital Annual costs, Cost cost

Regulatory option emissions, reduction, burden, generated, costs, $/ $ effectiveness, effectiveness,

Mg/yr Mg/yr 106 Btu/yr tons/yr 1,000 $/Mg $/Mg

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

MACT floora................................. 27 2 4 0 510 520,000 210,000 ..............

Regulatory Alternative I.................... 27 16 4 0 648 572,000 35,750 3,700

Regulatory Alternative II................... 27 17 4 0 808 792,000 46,590 220,000

Equivalent standard......................... 27 14 0 0 138 52,000 3,700 ..............

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

aThis option was chosen as the standard.

B. Air Impacts

The proposed standards would reduce HAP emissions from existing BLR

sources by 95 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (105 tons per year [tons/yr])

from the baseline level, a reduction of 78 percent from baseline.

Emissions of HAP from existing wet strength resin sources would

decrease by 2 Mg/yr (2 tons/yr) if facilities elect to comply with the

MACT floor, a reduction of 7 percent from baseline. If facilities elect

to implement the alternative standard for the process vents, storage

tanks, and wastewater source, HAP emissions would decrease by 14 Mg/yr

(15 tons/yr), a reduction of 52 percent from baseline.

C. Water and Solid Waste Impacts

The proposed standards will result in the generation of 3,200,000

gallons of wastewater per year from the BLR source category, assuming

gas absorbers (water scrubbers) are installed to control process vents

and storage tank emissions. This amount of wastewater represents

approximately 10 percent of the wastewater currently generated at the

BLR production facility and a small portion of the total wastewater

from the plant. EPA believes the additional wastewater can be treated

on-site in the plant's existing wastewater treatment system. Wastewater

impacts may be less if an alternative control measure is used to comply

with the standard.

There is no wastewater generated from the WSR production process,

because emissions are controlled with condensers. There is also no

solid waste generated from the BLR or WSR production processes.

D. Energy Impacts

The proposed standards for the BLR source category would require an

additional energy usage of 1.5 x 106 Btu per year (Btu/yr).

Additional energy usage for the WSR source category is 4 x 106

Btu/yr if the MACT floor is implemented; however, if facilities elect

to comply with the alternative standard, the additional energy usage is

negligible.

E. Cost Impacts

The emission reductions that would be required by this regulation

could be met using one or more of several different techniques. To

determine costs, certain control scenarios were assumed. The scenarios

used in costing were judged to be the most feasible scenarios possible

for meeting the requirements of the proposed standards from a technical

and cost standpoint. The total control cost includes the capital cost

to install the control device, the costs involved in operating the

control device, and costs associated with monitoring the device to

ensure compliance. Monitoring costs include the cost to purchase and

operate monitoring devices, as well as reporting and recordkeeping

costs required to demonstrate compliance.

The cost impacts of the proposed standards are summarized in Table

3 and Table 4. Nationwide, the total annual cost of this standard to

the BLR industry is $140,000.

The total cost of this regulation to the wet strength resin

industry is $520,000, assuming all facilities do not decide to achieve

compliance with the alternative standard (controlling equipment leaks).

If all facilities do decide to comply with the alternative standard,

the total annual cost is $52,000.

F. Economic Impacts

The economic impact analysis of this standard shows that the

estimated price increase from compliance with the recommended

alternative for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater is 0.05

percent for BLR. Estimated reduction in market output for BLR is 0.08

percent.

For WSR, control of equipment leaks is not required, but is allowed

as an alternative standard because it achieves an emission reduction

which is equivalent to or better than the MACT floor level of control

for vents, tanks, and wastewater. Assuming compliance with the

alternative standard for WSR, the estimated price increase is 0.22

percent and the estimated reduction in market output is 0.20 percent.

No plant closures are expected from compliance with this set of

alternatives. For more information, consult the background information

document for these standards (see the Background Information Documents

section near the beginning of this preamble).

VI. Rationale

A. Selection of Emission Points To Be Covered by the Standards

Emissions from BLR and WSR production occur from the following

emission points: Storage tanks, process vents, equipment leaks, and

wastewater. The proposed standards consider all of these emission

points. Wastewater emissions from wet strength resin facilities are

negligible, although they are included as an emission point.

B. Designation of Sources

For these proposed standards, a source is defined as all HAP

emission points within a facility that are related to the production of

BLR or WSR, including process vents, storage tanks, wastewater, and

equipment leaks. For the purpose of developing the standards, the

emission points included in the definition of the source are divided

into two portions:

1. All process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission

points; and

2. Equipment leaks.

The Administrator considered proposing a single emission limit that

would apply to process vents, storage tanks, wastewater and equipment

leaks. However, equipment leaks cannot be included with process vents,

storage tanks, and wastewater because: (1) The negotiated standard for

equipment leaks has no fixed performance level; and (2) no method

currently exists for determining the magnitude of allowable emissions

to assign for leaks. Without a method to determine the magnitude of

allowable emissions to assign for equipment leaks, an averaging policy

that included equipment leaks would be difficult to enforce. Therefore,

the MACT floor and each regulatory alternative has two components--one

for the combination of process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater,

and another for equipment leaks. When methods are developed to assign

allowable emission levels for particular leak points, the EPA will

consider revising these standards to allow inclusion of equipment leaks

in the emission limit.

The Administrator also considered proposing separate emission

limits for each type of emission point, but determined that this

approach was not feasible because tanks, and wastewater emission points

are intertwined by existing control strategies. For example, in

existing BLR facilities, process vents and storage tank emissions are

manifolded together and controlled using a common device. The device

commonly used to control these emissions is a water scrubber, which

functions in transferring potential HAP emissions from gaseous point

sources to a wastewater emission source. Therefore, a single emission

limit is proposed for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater

combined to give facilities flexibility in complying with the standard.

Specifying a single emission limit for this combination of emission

points gives facilities the latitude to determine the best way for them

to achieve emission reductions. Separate regulatory options were

identified for equipment leaks for the reasons described at the

beginning of this section.

C. Selection of Basis and Level of Proposed Standards for Existing

Sources

1. BLR Source Category

Because there are three existing facilities in the U.S. that

produce BLR (all three are believed to be major sources), EPA used the

average of the total production-based emission factors achieved by the

three facilities to determine the MACT floors. Using this method, the

production-based emission limit of 130 lb HAP/MM lb product was

established as the MACT floor for the process vents, storage tanks, and

wastewater portion of the source based on information from BLR

facilities.

Existing BLR facilities control equipment leak emissions using

various leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. The impacts

associated with the MACT floor and regulatory alternatives for sources

at existing BLR facilities are presented in Table 3.

Regulatory Alternative II represents the highest level of control

identified for existing BLR sources. Because the MACT floor for the

process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater portion of the source

reflects a high level of control (the use of water scrubbers, carbon

adsorbers, refrigerated condensers, and flares on process and storage

tank vents, and biodegradation to reduce emissions from wastewater),

only one area was identified as a possible additional controlled

emission point: the generation of HAP-containing scrubber effluent,

which is normally routed to the facility's wastewater treatment system.

This wastewater could be controlled by recirculating scrubber effluent

to the process. This measure would result in an emission limit of 125

lb HAP/MM production. Therefore, this emission limit was chosen for

Regulatory Alternative II for the process vents, storage tanks, and

wastewater portion of the source. The control method proposed for the

equipment leaks portion of the source was to implement the LDAR program

specified in 40 CFR 63, subpart H, which represents a higher level of

control than is currently practiced by any existing BLR facility.

In evaluating Regulatory Alternative II, the Administrator

considered the impacts (air, cost, water, and energy). Regulatory

Alternative II was rejected because the incremental emission reduction

over Regulatory Alternative I (2 Mg/yr [2 tons/yr]) is not significant

considering the associated cost. Water and energy impacts were

examined; however, because the magnitude of these impacts were small,

they were not a major factor in the decision to reject Regulatory

Alternative II.

The first regulatory alternative above the MACT floor (Regulatory

Alternative I) considered for existing BLR sources was to implement the

LDAR program specified in 40 CFR 63, subpart H to control the equipment

leaks portion of the source, and to require the MACT floor emission

limit of 130 lb HAP/MM lb product for the process vents, storage tanks,

and wastewater portion. The LDAR program of subpart H would achieve a

higher level of control than the MACT floor; also, the cost of this

control option was judged to be reasonable (see Table 3). Therefore,

the Administrator selected Regulatory Alternative I as the standard for

existing BLR sources.

2. WSR Source Category

The MACT floor for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater for

existing wet strength resin facilities was calculated based on data

supplied by the nine major sources making up this source category. The

MACT floor represents the average value of the lowest five production-

based emission totals from major sources in the industry. For the

process vents, wastewater, and storage tanks portion of the source, the

emission limit is 10 lb/MMlb production. Because no existing facility

in the WSR source category controls equipment leak emissions, the MACT

floor for the equipment leaks portion of the source represents an

uncontrolled situation. Impacts associated with the MACT floor and

regulatory alternatives for sources at existing wet strength resin

facilities are presented in Table 4.

Regulatory Alternative II, the most stringent alternative

identified for existing WSR sources, would require an emission limit of

5 lb HAP/MM lb product for the process vents, storage tanks, and

wastewater portion of the source, as well as requiring the subpart H

LDAR program for the equipment leaks portion of the source. In

evaluating Regulatory Alternative II, the Administrator considered the

impacts (air, cost, water, and energy). Regulatory Alternative II was

rejected because the incremental emission reduction over Regulatory

Alternative I, (1 Mg/yr) is not significant considering the associated

cost. No additional water or energy impacts were associated with

Regulatory Alternative II; therefore, water and energy impacts were not

a factor in the decision to reject Regulatory Alternative II.

Regulatory Alternative I, the first regulatory alternative above

the MACT floor for existing WSR sources, would require the MACT floor

emission limit of 10 lb HAP/MM lb production for the process vents,

storage tanks, and wastewater portion of the source, and the LDAR

program described in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H for the equipment leaks

portion of the source. In evaluating Regulatory Alternative I, the

Administrator considered the impacts (air, cost, water, and energy).

Considering the emission reduction and cost of Regulatory Alternative

I, the Administrator judged this option to be unreasonable. No

additional water or energy impacts were associated with Regulatory

Alternative I; therefore, water and energy impacts were not a factor in

the decision to reject Regulatory Alternative I.

Because both Regulatory Alternatives were judged to be

unreasonable, the control levels proposed for both the combined process

vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points, as well as the

equipment leaks portions of existing WSR sources are the MACT floor

levels. However, the Administrator proposes the implementation of the

subpart H LDAR program for equipment leaks as an equivalent standard

for existing WSR sources. The subpart H LDAR program represents an

effective control option with reasonable associated costs for the

equipment leaks portion of the source, with significant emission

reductions, no negative water impacts, and negligible energy impacts.

The subpart H LDAR program was chosen as an alternative standard

because it achieves an emission reduction which is equivalent to or

better than that achieved by the technology basis for the floor level

of control for vents, tanks, and wastewater and because costs of

implementation of this LDAR program are in many cases much more

reasonable than those incurred from requiring compliance with the

emission limit (see Table 4).

D. Selection of Basis and Level of Proposed Standards for New Sources

1. BLR Source Category

For new sources, the MACT floor shall be no less stringent than the

level representing the best controlled similar source. For new BLR

sources, the MACT floor for the portion of the source consisting of the

combination of process vents, storage tanks and wastewater is achieved

by: (1) Routing process vents and storage tank vents to a common water

scrubber with an efficiency of 99 percent; (2) recirculating scrubber

effluent back to the process, and (3) Controlling HAP emissions from

wastewater by 99 percent. This strategy represents a 99 percent

emission reduction for this portion of the source. No regulatory

alternatives more stringent than the new source MACT floor could be

identified for this portion of new BLR sources.

The MACT floor for the equipment leaks portion of new BLR sources

is the LDAR program of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.

Regulatory Alternative I for new BLR sources would require sources

to implement the subpart H LDAR program to control equipment leaks, in

addition to the MACT floor requirement for process vents, storage

tanks, and wastewater. The subpart H LDAR program represents a cost-

effective control option for equipment leaks with significant emission

reductions, no negative water impacts, and negligible energy impacts.

For these reasons, the Administrator chose Regulatory Alternative I as

the proposed standard for new BLR sources.

2. WSR Source Category

The MACT floor for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater for

new wet strength resin facilities is achieved by equipping the batch

reactor with a cooling water condenser, and by operating the process

without the use of hydrochloric acid and prohibiting the formation of

methanol. This represents the highest level of control that is

technically feasible. Therefore, no regulatory alternatives above the

MACT floor could be identified.

Because no existing facility in the WSR source category is

controlling equipment leak emissions, the MACT floor represents an

uncontrolled situation. Regulatory Alternative I for new WSR sources is

the LDAR program described in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H for the

equipment leaks portion of the source (the same as for existing

facilities), and the MACT floor equipment standard described in the

previous paragraph for the process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater

portion of the source. In evaluating Regulatory Alternative I, the

Administrator considered the impacts (air, costs, water, and energy).

Considering the emission reduction and cost of Regulatory Alternative

I, the Administrator judged this option to be unreasonable. No

additional water or energy impacts were associated with Regulatory

Alternative I; therefore, water and energy impacts were not a factor in

the decision to reject Regulatory Alternative I.

Because the only Regulatory Alternative above the MACT floor was

judged to be unreasonable, the control levels proposed for both the

combined process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points,

as well as the equipment leaks portions of new WSR sources are the MACT

floor levels. However, the Administrator proposes the implementation of

the subpart H LDAR program for equipment leaks as an equivalent

standard for new WSR sources. The subpart H LDAR program represents an

effective control option with reasonable associated costs for the

equipment leaks portion of the source, with significant emission

reductions, no negative water impacts, and negligible energy impacts.

The subpart H LDAR program was chosen as an alternative standard

because it achieves an emission reduction which is equivalent to or

better from that achieved by the technology basis for the floor level

of control for vents, tanks, and water and because costs of

implementation of this LDAR program are expected to be much more

reasonable than those incurred from requiring compliance with the

emission limit.

E. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards

The formats of the proposed standards were selected in order to

give facilities the most flexibility possible in achieving the level of

control required by the selected regulatory alternative. Because the

MACT floor for the process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater portion

of the source reflects control by various methods, the format needs to

allow sufficient flexibility for facilities to meet the level of the

standard using the various control methods already in place to the

extent possible.

Of the formats considered (mass emission limits, percent

concentration, percent reduction, equipment standards, work practice

standards), the mass emission limit format was chosen because various

combinations of controls can be employed among several emission points

to achieve the same mass emission rate. Also, mass emission limits

encourage facilities to reduce emissions through process changes, work

practice changes, and other methods to avoid costly add-on controls. In

this way, mass emission limits serve to encourage pollution prevention.

An equipment standard format is not needed for this source because an

emission limit can be established. Formats such as specifying a

concentration or a percent reduction, offer no advantages over the

emission limit format, and would be more cumbersome from an enforcement

standpoint due to the different characteristics of the emission points

that make up the source of process vents, storage tanks, and

wastewater.

For process vent, storage tank, and wastewater emission points

within new sources, however, equipment standards have been proposed. An

emission limit format cannot be used for these emission points within

new sources because it would identify specific facilities' production

levels, which are claimed as confidential business information.

However, facilities would have the opportunity to employ other

technologies to meet the standard by demonstrating equivalence.

The EPA solicits comments on the equipment standard format of the

standards for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater at new

facilities. In particular, the EPA solicits comments on whether

performance standards for vents, tanks, and wastewater at new

facilities can be used without compromising confidential business

information and whether operators can comply with performance standards

for vents, tanks, and wastewater at new facilities without compromising

confidential business information.

The LDAR program of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H is a combination of

an equipment standard/work practice format. Under section 112 of the

Act, national emission standards must, whenever possible, take the

format of a numerical emission standard. Typically, an emission

standard is written in terms of an allowable emission rate, performance

level, or allowable concentration. These types of standards require the

direct measurement of emissions to determine compliance. For some

emission points, emission standards cannot be prescribed because it is

not feasible to measure emissions. Section 112(h)(2) recognizes this

situation by defining two conditions under which it is not feasible to

establish an emission standard. These conditions are: (1) If the

pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and

constructed to emit or capture the pollutant; or (2) if the application

of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological and

economic limitations. If an emission standard cannot be established,

the EPA may instead establish a design, equipment, work practice, or

operational standard or combination thereof.

For equipment leak emission points, such as pumps and valves, EPA

has previously determined that it is not feasible to prescribe or

enforce emission standards. Except for those items of equipment for

which standards can be set at a specific concentration, the only method

of measuring emissions is total enclosure of individual items of

equipment, collection of emissions for a specified time period, and

measurement of the emissions. This procedure, known as bagging, is a

time-consuming and prohibitively expensive technique considering the

great number of individual items of equipment in a typical process

unit. Moreover, this procedure would not be useful for routine

monitoring and identification of leaking equipment for repair.

Therefore, LDAR program of 40 CFR, subpart H, an equipment/work

practice standard, was chosen for the equipment leaks emission point.

F. Selection of Compliance and Performance Testing Provisions and

Monitoring Requirements

The proposed regulation contains compliance provisions that require

owners or operators to conduct an initial performance test to

demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards. As a means of

demonstrating compliance with the standards following the initial

performance test, the owner or operator must also establish source-

specific parameters based on the characteristics of the emission

stream, process, or type of control device used. The Administrator

determined that these provisions were necessary to meet the monitoring

requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).

1. Testing and Monitoring

Compliance is comprised of initial performance testing and

continuous compliance verification, or monitoring. The proposed

requirements for initial compliance testing and any periodic or

continuous measurement to verify ongoing compliance are based on the

emission stream characteristics that would be encountered either at the

outlet of the control device or at the point of release to the

atmosphere for uncontrolled emission streams. Often, an important

factor to consider in evaluating emission stream characteristics is the

type of control device that is preceding the emission stream. Also, the

operating parameters of the device can be used as an indicator of the

level of control of the device and therefore, the outlet emissions. The

selection of appropriate test methods for initial and ongoing

compliance, therefore, is related to both the characteristics of the

stream and to the type of device used to control it. The discussion of

both factors is presented below.

2. Emission Stream Characteristics

An important characteristic to consider when evaluating measurement

methods are whether the streams are from continuous sources or whether

they are from batch sources. Streams that are from continuous sources

would have minimal variation in characteristics; the test measurement

method therefore can be intermittent in nature. For example, flowrate

and concentration can be sampled on an intermittent basis to obtain an

average emission value that presumably will not vary significantly.

Batch emission streams, however, are expected to have wide variation in

flowrate, composition, and conditions throughout the course of a batch

(i.e., with time). Often, proportional sampling of flowrate and

composition over the course of a batch to arrive at a total emission

number over the entire batch is necessary. Alternatively, simultaneous

measurement of flowrate and composition must be made to arrive at an

instantaneous emission rate. Because these methods are difficult, an

initial compliance test requiring concentration measurement is not

recommended for most batch operations. Specifically for these NESHAP,

equations are provided in the regulation to determine HAP emissions

from the batch reactor used in WSR production.

A second important characteristic of the emission stream to

consider during selection of a test method is the composition. If

organic material other than HAP are contained in the stream, it may be

necessary to speciate the stream or at least identify the HAP

constituents in the stream. This identification limits how continuously

the stream can be sampled. The most common technology that will be used

in identification is gas chromatography, specified in EPA Reference

Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Gas chromatography, coupled

with the quantification of material typically done with a flame-

ionization device (FID), EPA Reference Method 25A, can be done at sub-

minute intervals, but not continuously. However, if identification of

organic species is not necessary, an FID alone can be used. This

technology will provide a continuous reading of concentration.

3. Control Devices

The devices used to abate HAP emissions will affect the outlet

stream composition and conditions and therefore affect the degree of

confidence of the initial and continuous compliance methods. Devices

that are commonly used in the basic liquid resins and WSR industry to

control process vents and storage tank emissions are condensers, gas

absorbers (water scrubbers), carbon adsorbers, and flares. These

devices differ from one another in the type of streams that they

control and the outlet conditions of the streams.

i. Condensers. In the case of condensers, which are usually applied

to saturated emission streams and by design yield saturated streams, it

can be assumed that the components will be present at levels

corresponding to their saturated values (equilibrium) at the outlet

conditions. This measure provides a worst-case estimate of emissions.

Therefore, the direct measurement of concentration often may be

foregone in lieu of the measurement of stream temperature and flow rate

and subsequent calculation to yield mass emissions. For wet strength

resin batch reactors, this is the required measurement to determine HAP

concentration in both initial and continuous performance tests. Because

the emission streams controlled by condensers in basic liquid resin

manufacturing will be more likely to have multiple sources with

numerous components that will affect the ability to predict HAP

concentrations by measurement of secondary parameters, the direct

measurement of concentration is required at least in the initial

performance test. Thereafter, concentration measurements to establish

continuous compliance may be reasonably approximated with a measurement

of outlet gas temperature.

ii. Gas Absorbers. Gas absorbers (water scrubbers), however, differ

in that there is no parameter that can be measured and used to

establish a limit of HAP concentration. Often, the streams routed to

scrubbers are more dilute, and the control device functions in not only

changing the conditions of the gas temperature like a condenser would

do, but in employing concentration gradients to remove materials from

gas streams. In order to predict the performance of a gas absorber,

information must be known about the appropriate mass transfer

coefficients for the specific system. Most often, the mass transfer

coefficients are experimentally derived for specific applications and

are usually functions of the mass velocities and contacting path

variables. While it is possible to calculate the scrubber outlet

compositions without mass transfer information by assuming that the

amount of material transferred to the liquid is limited by the

equilibrium-defined composition, this information is not indicative of

the physical scrubber because it does not provide for the evaluation of

the contacting path. Therefore, a direct measurement of composition is

required during the initial performance test.

Evaluation of continuous compliance need not be done by continuous

direct measurement of HAP concentration from the scrubber effluent,

however. Another parameter, the liquid to gas molar ratio through the

scrubber, could be monitored to ensure required removal. The L/G ratio,

which often reduces to the measurement of L, the liquid molar flow

rate, because G, the gas molar flow rate is often constant, could be

measured during the initial performance test to evaluate the

sensitivity of the ratio with removal efficiency. Thereafter, the L/G

ratio could be used to verify appropriate removal if the ratio remained

within the limits established during the initial compliance test.

iii. Carbon Adsorbers. Streams controlled by carbon adsorption will

usually be diluted, compared to those controlled by condensers and

scrubbers. No surrogate parameters have been identified as measures of

HAP concentration or removal efficiencies. Therefore, a direct

measurement of concentration will be required during the initial

performance test as well as in continuous compliance monitoring.

iv. Flares. Compliance testing for flares can be complicated by the

formation of undesired products of combustion (including HAP) and the

inability to further capture and control these byproducts.

Nevertheless, if a facility chooses to use a flare as a control device,

EPA has established flare combustion efficiency criteria that specify

that 98 percent or greater combustion efficiency can be achieved

provided that certain operating conditions are met. If a HAP is formed

from combustion, the quantity formed must be considered when

calculating control efficiency. These conditions prescribe that the

flare must be operated with no visible emissions and with a flame

present and that the heating value and exit velocity of the gas routed

to the flare must be within certain ranges, depending upon whether the

flares are steam-assisted.

Additionally, the NESHAP general provisions provide for an initial

performance test to determine whether the net heating value will fall

within the applicable ranges for control at 98 percent. The performance

test involves measuring the incoming gas flowrate and the concentration

of combustible compounds (40 CFR 63.11) to determine net heating value.

However, it appears that as the number of compounds in the stream

increases, the determination of the net heating value becomes

increasingly difficult. Also, in light of the fact that flares are

often used to control discontinuous or upset conditions, the net

heating value at any one time is subject to change. Continuously

measuring the concentration of combustible compounds to determine

heating value on a continuous basis is probably not feasible.

Therefore, the enhanced monitoring method chosen for these standards is

to require that the presence of a pilot flame be monitored

continuously. Also, an initial measurement and characterization of the

inlet mass emissions to the flare is required for two reasons:

1. To determine the fraction of hazardous air pollutant emissions

that are being controlled by the flare; and

2. To determine the net heating value of the vent stream.

v. Wastewater. Because air emissions from wastewater treatment

systems cannot be collected and measured, certain parameters must be

identified that indicate the emission rate from wastewater for

monitoring purposes. The proposed methods for estimating wastewater

emissions for initial compliance with the proposed standards for the

emission source of process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater, as

well as for identifying enhanced monitoring parameter values for

wastewater, are those specified in 40 CFR 63.150(f)(5). The

requirements of 40 CFR 63.150(f)(5) consist of monitoring specific

wastewater treatment parameters and emission calculation methods.

Monitoring of the following wastewater parameters is required: inlet

flow rate, HAP concentration, pH, and biological oxygen demand. These

parameters were chosen for monitoring because they can be used to

determine wastewater treatment system performance.

vi. Storage Tanks. Storage tank emissions vary greatly over time,

which prohibits testing over reasonable periods of time. Therefore, no

initial compliance test is proposed for this emission point, unless

emissions are manifolded with process vents, in which case the

compliance tests specified for process vents apply. Instead, the

methods specified in 40 CFR 63.150(f)(3) are proposed to calculate

emissions. Emissions would be calculated based on the facility's

solvent usage records for the most recent 1-year period and divided by

the amount of product produced during the same period. A 1-year period

is necessary to reduce the effect of variation in solvent usage on the

emission calculation. Because emissions are calculated from factors,

and because storage tank emissions are not dependent on parameters that

can be controlled, no continuous monitoring requirements are proposed

for this emission point, except that facilities that control storage

tank emissions must certify that such controls are in proper working

order.

vii. Equipment Leaks. Like wastewater emissions, equipment leak

emissions occur in open areas and in most cases cannot feasibly be

captured. Therefore, no performance test is required for the equipment

leaks source. Instead, facilities must demonstrate that they have an

LDAR program in place that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 63,

subpart H. No monitoring requirements are proposed for equipment leaks,

as the proposed standard for equipment leaks is a work practice/

equipment standard.

5. Averaging Times

i. Initial compliance. The standards for the process vents, storage

tanks, and wastewater source at existing BLR and WSR production

facilities are in the form of mass emission limits. Initial compliance

is determined by adding the emissions per unit mass of product

calculated for each process vent, storage tank, and wastewater emission

point within the facility. For BLR production, a continuous process, a

1-hour averaging time is specified for process vent compliance tests;

the emission rate would be the average of the results of three 1-hour

tests. For WSR production, typically a batch operation, the emission

rates used to determine compliance would be the average of 3 tests

taken over for 3 different batch runs. Longer averaging times are

required for batch operations to minimize the effect of emissions that

vary significantly with time.

Storage tank emissions would be averaged over a period of 1 year,

based on HAP usage records from the previous year, to minimize the

effect of variation in solvent usage on the calculated emission rate. A

monthly averaging time is required for wastewater, as specified in 40

CFR 63.150(f)(5). Different averaging times are possible for different

emission types because emissions are divided by the production rate for

an equal time period. The resulting production-based emissions are then

added together according to Equation 1 and compared with the mass

emission limit to determine compliance.

ii. Monitoring. In accordance with Sec. 63.8(c)(4) of the General

Provisions, all continuous monitoring systems measuring either

emissions or an operating parameter shall complete a minimum of one

measurement cycle (sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each

successive 15-minute period.

BLR source category. For BLR manufacturers, the determination of

compliance varies for each type of control or capture system. Owners

and operators complying with the standard by using carbon adsorbers,

condensers, incinerators, and total enclosures on continuous processes

may be determined to be out of compliance with the standard if, for any

1-hour period, the average operating parameter value exceeds or is less

than the value established during the initial performance test, as

applicable. A 1-hour averaging time is chosen to determine compliance

because it parallels the length of time for each of the three test runs

conducted for the initial performance test.

WSR source category. Wet strength resins are produced in batch

processes, during which emissions may vary significantly. Therefore,

longer averaging times are necessary for WSR processes than for BLR

processes. The averaging time proposed for WSR processes is the time

required to complete one batch operation (typically about 8 hours).

Because producers of WSR do not vary the production process from batch

to batch, emissions data averaged over the course of one batch

operation would be representative of the actual emissions from future

batch runs.

G. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

The owner or operator of any BLR or wet strength resin facility

subject to these standards would be required to fulfill all reporting

requirements outlined in the General Provisions 40 CFR part 63. No

special considerations have been identified for these industries that

would warrant additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

H. Operating Permit Program

Under Title V of the Act, all HAP-emitting facilities will be

required to obtain an operating permit. Oftentimes, emission limits,

monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements are scattered

among numerous provisions of State implementation plans (SIP's) or

Federal regulations. As discussed in the proposed rule for the

operating permit program published on May 10, 1991 (58 FR 21712), this

new permit program would include in a single document all of the

requirements that pertain to a single source. Once a State's permit

program has been approved, each facility containing that source within

that State must apply for and obtain an operating permit. If the State

wherein the source is located does not have an approved permitting

program, the owner or operator of a source must submit the application

under the proposed General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the

proposed standard in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air

Act. Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the proposed

standards for epoxy resins production and non-nylon polyamides

production should contact EPA at the address given in the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble. Oral presentations will be limited to 15

minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written statement

before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements

should be addressed to the Air Docket Section address given in the

ADDRESSES section of this preamble and should refer to Docket No. A-92-

37.

A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be

available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours

at EPA's Air Docket Section in Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES section of

this preamble).

B. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information

submitted to or otherwise considered by EPA in the development of this

proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are:

1. To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate

documents so that they can intelligently and effectively participate in

the rulemaking process; and

2. To serve as the record in case of judicial review (except for

interagency review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A))).

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review

and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines

``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a

rule that may:

1. Have an annual effect of the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

this Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified

EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within

the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action for

OMB review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations will be documented in the public record.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document

has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1681.01), and a copy may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M Street SW.,

(2136), Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. The public

reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to

average 600 hours per source, including time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection of information.

Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this

burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20503, marked

``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any

OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements

contained in this proposal.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA

to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small business

``entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed

regulation would have a significant economic impact on 20 percent or

more of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis must be

prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines for regulations like this one

whose start action notifications (SAN's) were filed before April 1992

indicate that an economic impact should be considered significant if it

meets one of the following criteria:

1. Compliance increases annual production costs by more than 5

percent, assuming costs are passed onto consumers;

2. Compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities are

at least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of sales

for large entities;

3. Capital costs of compliance represent a ``significant'' portion

of capital available to small entities, considering internal cash flow

plus external financial capabilities; or

4. Regulatory requirements are likely to result in closure of small

entities.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. All of the affected BLR and WSR producers are large enough

not to satisfy the criteria for a small business. Consequently, no

significant small business impacts will result from compliance with

these standards.

F. Miscellaneous

In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this

proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory

committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.

The Administrator will welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed

regulation, including health, economic and technical issues, and on the

proposed test methods.

This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of

promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as

evaluation of the residual health and environmental risks, any overlap

with other programs, the existence of alternative methods,

enforceability, improvements in emission control technology and health

data, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 29, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-10973 Filed 5-13-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P