National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyether Polyols Production
Federal RegisterSep 4, 1997
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: The proposed rule will reduce emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from existing and new facilities that manufacture
polyether polyols and are located at major source plant sites.
Polyether polyols are used to make a variety of products. Urethane
grade polyether polyols are used as raw material in the production of
polyurethanes, including slabstock and molded flexible foams, rigid
foams, and other polyurethanes including microcellular products,
surface coatings, elastomers, fibers, adhesives, and sealants.
Nonurethane polyether polyols are used as surfactants, lubricants,
degreasing agents, hydraulic fluids, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals.
In the production of these polyols, HAP are used primarily as
reactants or extraction solvents. The HAP emitted by the facilities
covered by this proposed rule include ethylene oxide (EO), propylene
oxide (PO), hexane, toluene, and incidental emissions of several other
HAP. Some of these pollutants are considered to be probable human
carcinogens when inhaled and all can cause toxic effects following
exposure. The proposed rule is estimated to reduce emissions of these
pollutants by 1,810 Mg/yr. Because all of the pollutants are also
volatile organic compounds (VOC), which are precursors to ambient
ozone, the proposed rule would aid in the reduction of tropospheric
ozone.
The emission reductions achieved by these standards when combined
with the emission reductions achieved by other similar standards, will
achieve the primary goal of the Clean Air Act, which is to ``enhance
the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public
health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.'' The
intent of this rule is to protect the public by requiring the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions of HAP from new and existing major
sources, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission
reduction, and any non-air quality, health and environmental impacts,
and energy requirements.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 3,
1997.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by September 25, 1997, a public hearing will be held in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina on October 6, 1997, beginning at
10 a.m. Persons interested in attending the hearing should call Ms.
Maria Noell at (919) 541-5607 to verify that a hearing will be held.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact EPA by September 25, 1997 by contacting Ms.
Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-5607.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(6102), Attention: Docket No. A-96-38, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a
separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Comments and data may also be
submitted electronically by following the instructions provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. No Confidential Business Information
(CBI) should be submitted through electronic mail.
Public Hearing. The public hearing, if requested, will be held at
the EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.
Docket. The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the
public version, has been established under Docket No. A-96-38
(including comments and data submitted electronically as described
above). A public version of this record, including printed, paper
versions of electronic comments and data, which does not include any
information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official
rulemaking docket is located at the address in the ADDRESSES section
above. Alternatively, a docket index, as well as individual items
contained within the docket, may be obtained by calling (202) 260-7548.
A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed rule, contact Mr. David Svendsgaard at (919) 541-2380, Organic
Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Filing. Electronic comments can
be sent directly to the EPA at: [email protected].
Electronic comments and data must be submitted as an ASCII file
avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 or
6.1 file format or ASCII file format. All comments and data in
electronic form must be identified by the docket number A-96-38.
Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries.
Regulated entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action
upon promulgation are polyether polyols production facilities.
Regulated categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Producers of polyether
polyols.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1420 of the proposed rule. If you
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
In addition to its inclusion in this notice, the regulatory text is
available in Docket No. A-96-38, or from the EPA contact person
designated in this notice. The proposed regulatory language is also
available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) on the EPA's
electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The service is
free, except for the cost of a telephone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for
up to a 14,400 bps modem. For further information, call the TTN HELP
line at (919) 541-5384, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
or access the TTN Web site at: http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov.
[[Page 46805]]
The Basis and Purpose Document, which contains the rationale for
the various components of the standard, is available in the docket and
on the TTN. This document is entitled Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
from the Production of Polyether Polyols--Basis and Purpose Document
for Proposed Standards, May 1997, and has been assigned document number
EPA-453/R-97-003a.
Other materials related to this rulemaking are also available for
review in the docket. Some of the technical memoranda have been
compiled into a single document, the Supplementary Information Document
(SID), to allow interested parties more convenient access to the
information. The SID is entitled Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from
the Production of Polyether Polyols--Supplementary Information Document
for Proposed Standards, May 1997, and has been assigned document number
EPA-453/R-97-003c.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. List of Source Categories
II. A Summary of Considerations Made in Developing This Standard
III. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
IV. Summary of Proposed Standard
A. Source Category to be Regulated
B. Relationship to Other Rules
C. Pollutants to be Regulated
D. Affected Emission Points
E. Format of the Standards
F. Proposed Standards
G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
V. Discussion of Major Issues
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost and Economic Impacts
A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP
B. Primary Air Impacts
C. Other Environmental Impacts
D. Energy Impacts
E. Cost Impacts
F. Economic Impacts
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
H. Miscellaneous
I. List of Source Categories
The EPA identified a total of approximately 84 plant sites
producing polyether polyols. Of the 84 facilities, 78 are considered in
the analysis supporting this proposed rule, and are believed to be
major sources according to the 1990 Amendments criterion of having the
potential to emit 10 tons per year of any one HAP or 25 tons per year
of combined HAP. The proposed rule would apply to all major sources
that produce polyether polyols. Area sources would not be subject to
this proposed rule.
In developing the background information to support the proposed
rule, the EPA decided it was appropriate to subcategorize the source
category for purposes of analyzing the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) floors and regulatory alternatives. The subcategories
are: Polyether polyols made from the polymerization of epoxides; and
polyether polyols made from the polymerization of tetrahydrofuran
(THF). (An ``epoxide'' is a chemical compound consisting of a three-
membered cyclic ether. Ethylene oxide and propylene oxide are the only
epoxides that are listed as HAP under section 112(b) of the Clean Air
Act.) Subcategorization was necessary due to the distinctively
different nature of the epoxide and THF processes and its effect on the
applicability of controls. One noteworthy distinction between the two
subcategories is that the first group, polyols made with epoxides, uses
a HAP as the monomer, whereas the second group does not use a HAP
monomer. Additionally, the first group performs the reaction primarily
on a batch basis, while the second group, polyols made with THF,
performs the reaction on a continuous basis. Although the level of the
proposed standard is identical for wastewater, storage vessels, and
equipment leaks, the technical analyses were conducted separately for
each subcategory to determine the appropriate level of the standard.
The Agency obtained data from facilities that make polyether
products by polymerizing a compound having multiple reactive hydrogen
atoms, resulting in the formation of a ``polyol,'' and from facilities
that make polyethers by polymerizing a compound with a single reactive
hydrogen, which forms a ``mono-ol.'' The Agency then investigated the
distinctions between the production units and the emissions controls
for products from these two groups. The Agency found no fundamental
difference between the processes, the chemistry, the emissions, or the
types of control equipment. Further, many producers use the same
process equipment to produce polyols and mono-ols, yet they generically
refer to both types of products as ``polyols.'' Therefore, for the
purposes of this regulation, the Agency intends the term ``polyether
polyols'' to represent both polyether polyols and polyether mono-ols.
II. Summary of Considerations Made in Developing This Standard
The Clean Air Act was created in part ``to protect and enhance the
quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public
health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population''
(Clean Air Act, section 101(b)(1)). Available emission data, collected
during the development of these proposed National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), show that the primary pollutants
emitted by polyether polyols production that are listed in Section
112(b)(1) are ethylene oxide (EO), propylene oxide (PO), hexane and
toluene and other incidental HAP. The proposed emission limits are
projected to reduce HAP emissions by 47 percent from both
subcategories. All reported HAP from polyether polyol producers are
volatile organic compounds (VOC), therefore, this regulation is
projected to reduce VOC emissions by 1,810 megagram per year (Mg/yr).
The following is a summary of the potential health effects associated
with exposure to these HAP that would be reduced by the standard.
Acute (short-term) exposure to high concentration of ethylene oxide
in air can cause nausea, vomiting, neurological disorders, and even
death. Lower concentrations may irritate the eyes, skin, and lungs.
Chronic (long-term) exposure to EO irritates the eyes, skin, and mucous
membranes and impairs central nervous system (CNS) function. Inhalation
exposure may increase miscarriage rates in workers, and animal studies
have shown adverse reproductive effects in males and females.
Developmental effects, such as malformations and decreased fetal weight
have been noted in animals. Long-term exposure to high levels of EO (c.
7000 ppm or more) may lead to cataracts in humans. Limited data exist
suggesting elevated rates of leukemia, stomach and pancreatic cancer,
and Hodgkin's disease in workers exposed to EO by inhalation; animal
studies indicate that inhalation of EO causes lung and uterine tumors.
EPA has classified EO as a Group B1 (probable) human carcinogen.
Acute exposure of workers to PO has been linked to CNS effects such
as headache, weakness, loss or coordination, and coma. Propylene oxide
also irritates the eyes and respiratory tract, causing coughing and
difficulty in breathing, possibly leading
[[Page 46806]]
to pulmonary edema and pneumonia. No adverse health effects from
chronic PO exposure in humans have been reported. Chronic animal
studies have reported neurological disorders and inflammatory lesions
of the nasal cavity, trachea, and lungs. EPA has classified PO as a
Group B2 (probable) human carcinogen on the basis of nasal tumors
observed in rodents exposed by inhalation.
Acute inhalation of toluene by humans may cause CNS effects such as
fatigue, headache, and nausea, as well as irregular heartbeat. Repeated
exposure to high concentrations may induce loss of coordination,
tremors, decreased brain size, and involuntary eye movements, and may
impair speech, hearing, and vision. Chronic exposure to toluene in
humans has also been reported to irritate the skin, eyes, and
respiratory tract, and to cause dizziness, headaches, and difficulty
with sleep. Children exposed to toluene before birth may suffer nervous
system dysfunction, attention deficits, and minor face and limb
defects. Inhalation of toluene by pregnant women may increase the risk
of spontaneous abortion. Because data are inadequate to assess
potential cancer risk the EPA has classified toluene in Group D, not
classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
Acute exposure by humans to high levels of hexane causes mild CNS
depression and irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. Nervous
system effects include dizziness, nausea, and headaches. Chronic
exposure to hexane is associated with numbness in the extremities,
muscular weakness, blurred vision, headache, and fatigue. No
information is available on reproductive or developmental effects of
hexane exposure in humans, but inhalation studies have reported
testicular damage. Because data are inadequate to assess potential
cancer risk, the EPA has classified hexane in Group D, not classifiable
as to human carcinogenicity.
The effects of these HAP vary in severity based on the level and
length of exposure and are influenced by source-specific
characteristics such as emission rates and local meteorological
conditions. Health impacts are also dependent on multiple factors that
affect human variability such as genetics, age, health status (e.g.,
presence of pre-existing disease) and lifestyle. The EPA does not have
sufficient detailed data to conduct an intensive analysis to determine
the actual population exposures to the HAP and resulting health effects
around these facilities. This rule is technology-based; i.e., based on
maximum achievable control technology. In addition, it is not a
``significant'' rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and a
benefits analysis is not required. Considering these factors, the EPA
chose not to expend the resources required to collect additional data
and conduct an intensive health impacts analysis. Therefore, the EPA
does not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described
above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However,
to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the proposed standard will
substantially reduce emissions and exposures to the level achievable
with MACT. The seriousness of risks remaining after impositions of the
final MACT standards will be examined at a later date, as provided for
under section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act.
The alternatives considered in the development of this regulation,
including those alternatives selected as standards for new and existing
polyether polyols production facilities, are based on process and
emission data received from a questionnaire sent to urethane and
nonurethane polyether polyols producing facilities, and on additional
information submitted by the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI).
The EPA met with industry and State representatives several times to
discuss these data. In addition, facilities and State regulatory
authorities had the opportunity to comment on draft versions of the
MACT regulatory provisions, and to provide additional information.
Several facilities and States did provide comments, and these comments
were considered in preparing the proposed standard.
The proposed standards give existing facilities three years from
the date of promulgation to comply. This is the maximum amount of time
allowed under the Clean Air Act. New sources are required to comply
with the requirements of the standards upon startup. The number of
existing plants considered to be major sources, and therefore affected
by this rule, is estimated to be 78.
Included in the proposed rule are methods for determining initial
compliance, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that
sources will comply with the standards both initially and over time.
However, the EPA has made every effort to simplify the requirements in
the rule. The Agency has also attempted to maintain consistency with
existing regulations by either incorporating applicable text from
existing regulations or referencing existing regulations, depending on
which method would be less confusing for a given situation.
This rule introduces the concept of ``extended cookout,'' which is
a pollution prevention technique that has been employed by some
industry members as an alternative to installing traditional add-on
control devices. The EPA worked with the industry and State agency
representatives to delineate requirements for demonstrating compliance
from the use of extended cookout.
As described in the Basis and Purpose document, regulatory
alternatives were considered that included a combination of
requirements equal to, and above, the minimum level of control allowed
by the Clean Air Act (i.e., the ``floor''--see section III.B.). Cost-
effectiveness was a factor considered in evaluating options above the
floor; in cases where options more stringent than the floor were
selected, they were judged to have a reasonable cost effectiveness.
Non-air environmental and health factors, as well as energy impacts
were also considered for the proposed standards.
Representatives from other interested EPA offices and programs, as
well as representatives from State regulatory agencies, are included in
the regulatory development process. Therefore, the EPA believes that
the implications to other EPA offices and programs have been adequately
considered during the development of these standards.
III. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
Section 112 of the 1990 Amendments gives the EPA the authority to
establish national standards to reduce air emissions from sources that
emit one or more HAP. Section 112(b) contains a list of HAP to be
regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c)directs the EPA to use this
pollutant list to develop and publish a list of source categories for
which NESHAP will be developed. The EPA must list all known source
categories and subcategories of ``major sources'' (defined below) that
emit one or more of the listed HAP. A major source is defined in
section 112(a) as any stationary source or group of stationary sources
located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or
has the potential to emit in the aggregate, considering controls, 10
tons per year or more of any one HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any
combination of HAP. This list of source categories was published in the
Federal
[[Page 46807]]
Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and included polyether polyols.
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 1990 Amendments. 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 MACT.
The MACT ``floor'' is the least stringent level allowed for MACT
standards. For new sources, the standards for a source category or
subcategory ``shall not be less stringent than the emission control
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as
determined by the Administrator'' (section 112(d)(3)). Existing source
standards shall be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing
sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources or the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five
sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources
(section 112(d)(3)). These two minimum levels of control define the
MACT floor for new and existing sources. When the selection of MACT
considers control levels more stringent than the MACT floor described
above, its selection must reflect consideration of the cost of
achieving the emission reduction, any non-air quality, health, and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
IV. Summary of Proposed Standards
This section provides a summary of the proposed regulation. The
full regulatory text is printed in today's notice and is also available
in Docket No. A-96-38, directly from the EPA, or from the Technology
Transfer Network (TTN) on the EPA's electronic bulletin boards. More
information on how to obtain a copy of the proposed regulation is
provided at the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
A. Source Category To Be Regulated
These proposed standards would regulate HAP emissions from
polyether polyols manufacturing process units (PMPU) provided that a
PMPU is a major source or is located at a plant site that is a major
source. Polyether polyols are defined as the products formed by the
reaction of ethylene oxide (EO), propylene oxide (PO), or other cyclic
ethers with compounds having one or more reactive hydrogens (i.e., a
hydrogen atom bonded to nitrogen, sulfur, oxygen, phosphorous, etc.).
This definition excludes materials regulated as glycols or glycol
ethers under the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). For the proposed rule,
an affected source is defined as each group of one or more PMPU, that
is manufacturing polyether polyols and that is located at a plant site
that is a major source.
If a plant site with an existing affected source producing a
polyether polyol as its primary product constructs a new PMPU also
producing a polyether polyol as its primary product, the new PMPU is a
new affected source if the new PMPU has the potential to emit more than
10 tons per year of a single HAP, or 25 tons per year of all HAP. In
this situation, the plant site would have an existing affected source
and a new source. Each subsequent new PMPU with potential HAP emissions
above the levels cited above would be a separate new affected source.
New affected sources are also created when a PMPU is constructed at
a major source plant site where the polyether polyol product was not
previously produced (with no consideration of the potential HAP
emissions from the PMPU). Another instance where a new affected source
is created is if a new PMPU is constructed at a new plant site (i.e.,
green field site) that will be a major source. The final manner in
which a new affected source is created is when an existing affected
source undergoes reconstruction, thus making the previous existing
source subject to new source standards.
B. Relationship to Other Rules
Sources subject to the proposed rule are also subject to other
existing rules. In some cases, the proposed rule supersedes existing
rules and affected sources are no longer required to comply with the
existing rule. In other cases, there is no conflict between the
existing rule and the proposed rule, and in these cases, the affected
source must comply with both rules.
Sources subject to the proposed rule may have storage vessels
subject to the NSPS for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (40 CFR
part 60, subpart Kb). After the compliance date for this rule, such
storage vessels are only subject to this rule and are no longer
required to comply with subpart Kb.
Sources subject to the proposed rule may have cooling towers
subject to the NESHAP for Industrial Cooling Towers (40 CFR part 63,
subpart Q). There is no conflict between the requirements of subpart Q
and the proposed rule. Therefore, sources subject to both rules must
comply with both rules.
C. Pollutants To Be Regulated
The source categories covered by the proposed rule emit a variety
of HAP. The most significant emissions are of the following HAP: EO,
PO, hexane, and toluene. These proposed standards would regulate
emissions of these compounds, as well as all other organic HAP that are
emitted during the production of polyether polyols.
D. Affected Emission Points
Emissions from the following types of emission points (i.e.,
emission source types) are being covered by the proposed rule: Storage
vessels, process vents, equipment leaks, and wastewater operations.
E. Format of the Standards
As discussed in more detail in Section IV.F, the proposed
standards, the HON (subparts F, G, and H of 40 CFR part 63) and the
Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP (subpart U of 40 CFR part 63)
provided a basis for selection of the proposed formats. In most
instances, the format of these proposed standards is the same as those
found in the HON and/or the Group I Polymers and Resins NESHAP. The
following paragraphs summarize the selected formats, including those
that are different from the HON and/or the Group I Polymers and Resins
NESHAP. The formats and their basis for selection are discussed in more
detail in the Basis and Purpose Document for this proposed regulation.
For storage vessels for both subcategories, the format of these
proposed standards is dependent on the method selected to comply with
the standards. If tank improvements (e.g., internal or external
floating roofs with proper seals and fittings) are selected, the format
is a combination of design, equipment, work practice, and operational
standards. If a closed vent system and combustion, recovery, or
recapture device are selected, the format is a combination of design
and equipment standards.
For process vents that make polyether polyols using epoxides or
THF, the format of these proposed standards is a percent aggregate
emission reduction.
For equipment leaks from both subcategories, these proposed
standards incorporate several formats: Equipment, design, lowest
allowable performance levels (e.g., maximum allowable percent leaking
valves), work practices, and operational practices. Different formats
are necessary for different types of equipment, available control
techniques, and applicability of the
[[Page 46808]]
measurement method. In addition, a work practice standard is adopted
for equipment leaks resulting in the emission of HAP from cooling
towers at all facilities producing polyether polyols. This standard
requires the leak detection and repair of leaks of HAP into cooling
tower water.
For wastewater streams requiring control from both subcategories of
the source category, these proposed standards incorporate several
formats: Equipment, operational, work practice, and emission standards.
The particular format selected depends on which portion of the
wastewater stream is involved. For transport and handling equipment,
the selected format is a combination of equipment standards and work
practices. For the reduction of HAP from the wastewater stream itself,
several alternative formats are incorporated, including five
alternative numerical emission limit formats (overall percent reduction
for total organic HAP, individual HAP percent reduction, effluent
concentration limit for total organic HAP, individual organic HAP
effluent concentration limits, and mass removal for HAP) and equipment
design and operation standard for a steam stripper. For vapor recovery
and destruction devices other than flares, the format is a weight
percent reduction. For flares, the format is a combination of equipment
and operating specifications.
F. Proposed Standards
The standards being proposed for the following emission sources at
new and existing facilities have the same applicability (i.e., group
determination criteria) and control requirements as those promulgated
for the corresponding emission source types at existing sources subject
to the HON (Subpart F for general requirements, Subpart G for process
vents, wastewater and storage vessels, and subpart H for equipment
leaks): storage vessels; process vents from polyether polyol production
with THF; process vents from continuous unit operations that emit
nonepoxide HAP while making or modifying the polyol; equipment leaks,
and wastewater. The requirements for process vents that emit nonepoxide
HAP from making or modifying the product are based on the process vent
sections of subpart G (for vents from continuous unit operations) and
subpart U (for vents from batch unit operations), except that the Group
1/Group 2 criteria are applied to the combination of process vents
associated with the use of nonepoxide HAP to make or modify the
product, rather than on individual vents. The process vent provisions
for epoxide emission and nonepoxide HAP emissions from catalyst
extraction require a specified emission reduction for the combination
of all process vent streams at an affected source.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the level of control being proposed for
new and existing sources, respectively. Where the applicability
criteria and required level of control is the same as the HON, this is
indicated in the table as ``HON.'' When the table lists ``epoxides'' it
is referring to EO and PO, the HAP monomers used in the polyether
polyols process. ``Nonepoxide HAP'' refers to organic HAP other than EO
and PO that are used in this process. The following sections describe
these proposed standards in more detail, by emission source type. The
rationale for the selection of the proposed standards is contained in
the Basis and Purpose Document. The Basis and Purpose Document is
available as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
Preamble.
Table 1.--Summary of Level of Proposed Standards for Existing Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5)Emission sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source, category,
(2) Waste Equip;
subcategory Storage
(2)Process vents a water leaks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyether Polyols made with THF HON............
(2) The Group 1/Group 2 HON............ HON..............
criteria are from Sec.
63.115(d)(1) or (d)(2), and
(d)(3) of subpart G. If the
collection of vents is Group
1, the control requirement is
98% emission reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epoxides Nonepoxide HAP in making or Nonepoxide HAP in
modifying the product catalyst
extraction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyether Polyols made with HON............ 98 percent For process vents from batch 90 percent HON........... HON
Epoxides. aggregate unit operations, the Group 1/ aggregate
emission Group 2 criteria are from 40 emission
reduction. CFR 63 Subpart U. If the reduction.
collection of vents is Group 1,
the control requirement is a 90
percent aggregate emission
reduction.
For process vents from
continuous unit operations, the
Group 1/Group 2 criteria are
from Sec. 63.115(d)(1) or
(d)(2), and (d)(3) of subpart
G. If the collection of vents
is Group 1, the control
requirement is a 98 percent
aggregate emission reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a For Group1/Group 2 determination, the appropriate criteria are applied to the combination of all applicable process vents and not to individual
process vents.
Table 2.--Summary of Level of Proposed Standards for New Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5)Emission sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source, category,
(2) Waste Equip;
subcategory Storage
(2)Process vents a water leaks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyether Polyols made with THF HON............
(2) The Group 1/Group 2 HON............ HON..............
criteria are from Sec.
63.115(d)(1) or (d)(2), and
(d)(3) of subpart G. If the
collection of vents is Group
1, the control requirement is
98% emission reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46809]]
Epoxides Nonepoxide HAP in making or Nonepoxide HAP in
modifying the product catalyst
extraction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyether Polyols made with HON............ 99.9 percent For process vents from batch 98 percent HON........... HON
Epoxides. aggregate unit operations, the Group 1/ aggregate
emission Group 2 criteria are from 40 emission
reduction. CFR 63 Subpart U. If the reduction.
collection of vents is Group 1,
the control requirement is a 90
percent aggregate emission
reduction.
For process vents from
continuous unit operations, the
Group 1/Group 2 criteria are
from Sec. 63.115(d)(1) or
(d)(2), and (d)(3) of subpart
G. If the collection of vents
is Group 1, the control
requirement is a 98 percent
aggregate emission reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a For Group1/Group 2 determination, the appropriate criteria are applied to the combination of all applicable process vents and not to individual
process vents.
1. Storage Vessels
For polyether polyols made with either epoxides or THF, the storage
vessel requirements at new and existing affected sources are identical
to the HON storage vessel requirements in subpart G for existing
sources. For this proposed rule ``storage vessel'' is a tank or other
vessel that is associated with a PMPU and that stores a liquid
containing one or more organic HAP. The proposed rule specifies
assignment procedures for determining whether a storage vessel is
associated with a polyether polyols process unit. The storage vessel
provisions do not apply to the following (1) vessels permanently
attached to motor vehicles, (2) pressure vessels designed to operate in
excess of 204.9 kPa (29.7 psia), (3) vessels with capacities smaller
than 38 m\3\ (10,000 gal), (4) wastewater tanks, and (5) vessels
storing liquids that contain HAP only as impurities. An impurity is
produced coincidentally with another chemical substance and is
processed, used, or distributed with it. The owner or operator must
determine if the storage vessel is Group 1 or Group 2; Group 1 storage
vessels require control while Group 2 do not. The criteria for
determining whether a storage vessel is Group 1 or Group 2 are shown in
Table 3, and are the same as the HON criteria for existing sources.
Table 3.--Group 1 Storage Vessel Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel capacity (cubic meters) Vapor pressurea (kPa)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing and new sources:
75=13.1
151>=capacity............................ >=5.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP at average storage
temperature.
The storage provisions require that one of the following control
systems be applied to Group 1 storage vessels: (1) An internal floating
roof with proper seals and fittings; (2) an external floating roof with
proper seals and fittings; (3) an external floating roof converted to
an internal floating roof with proper seals and fittings; or (4) a
closed vent system with a 95 percent efficient combustion, recovery, or
recapture device. The storage provisions give details on the types of
seals and fittings required. Monitoring and compliance provisions
include periodic visual inspections of vessels, roof seals, and
fittings, as well as internal inspections. If a closed vent system and
combustion, recovery, or recapture device is used, the owner or
operator must establish appropriate monitoring procedures. Reports and
records of inspections, repairs, and other information necessary to
determine compliance are also required by the storage provisions.
2. Process Vents
There are separate process vent provisions in the proposed rule for
the two polyether polyol subcategories. These requirements are
discussed in the following sections.
a. Control requirements. i. Polyether polyols that use epoxides as
a reactant. For the polyols that use epoxides, the process vent
provisions are separated into three groups, which are based on the
function of the organic HAP in the production process. These groups are
(1) EO and PO (i.e., epoxide) emissions resulting from the use of these
chemicals as reactants; (2) emissions of organic HAP other than EO or
PO (i.e., ``nonepoxide HAP'') from their use in making or modifying the
polyether polyol product; and (3) emissions of nonepoxide HAP from
their use in catalyst extraction.
Requirements for Epoxide Emissions. The process vent provisions for
epoxide emissions require the owner or operator of existing sources
using epoxides to reduce the aggregate total epoxide process vent
emissions by 98 weight-percent, and by 99.9 weight-percent for new
sources. In the determination of the control efficiency, uncontrolled
emissions are measured at the outlet of the unit operation, and
controlled emissions at the outlet of the combustion, recovery, or
recapture device. Primary condensers operating as reflux condensers are
considered part of the unit operation and not a recovery device.
In addition to achieving the 98 (or 99.9) percent reduction using a
combustion, recovery, or recapture device, the proposed rule also
allows the use of ``extended cook-out'' as a means of reducing
emissions by the required percentage. This pollution prevention
technique reduces emissions by extending the time of reaction, thus
leaving less unreacted epoxides to be emitted downstream.
If a combustion, recovery, or recapture device is used to reduce
epoxide emissions, an owner or operator can comply by demonstrating
that each outlet stream after the control option has a concentration of
20 ppmv epoxide for existing sources. This is considered to be
equivalent to demonstrating a 98 percent control efficiency from a
combustion, recovery or recapture device.
As an alternative to the 98 percent emission reduction, owners or
operators of existing sources can maintain a epoxide emission factor
from the PMPU of no more than 1.7 X 10-2 kilograms of
epoxide emissions per megagram of product made (kg/Mg). The
corresponding emission factor for new sources is 4.4 X 10-3
kg/Mg. Compliance with this alternative
[[Page 46810]]
limitation will be achieved by developing and following an epoxide
annual emissions plan, which must include provisions for the monitoring
of the process and any combustion, recovery, or recapture device
parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitation.
Requirements for nonepoxide HAP emissions from catalyst extraction.
The process vent provisions require the owner or operator of existing
sources using epoxides to reduce the aggregate total nonepoxide organic
HAP emissions by 90 weight-percent from process vents associated with
catalyst extraction at existing sources. For new sources the
requirement is a reduction in these emissions of 98 weight-percent.
This provision only applies if a nonepoxide organic HAP is used in the
catalyst extraction process. As with the epoxide provisions,
uncontrolled emissions are measured at the outlet of the unit
operation, and controlled emissions at the outlet of the combustion,
recovery, or recapture device. Primary condensers operating as reflux
condensers are considered part of the unit operation and not a recovery
device.
Requirements for nonepoxide HAP used to make or alter the product.
There are separate provisions for batch and continuous processes for
process vents associated with the use of nonepoxide organic HAP to make
or alter the product. The approach for vents from both batch and
continuous unit operations is to determine if the collection of process
vents in each PMPU that are associated with the use of nonepoxide
organic HAP to make or alter the product is Group 1 or Group 2. If the
combination of vents is determined to be Group 1, the aggregate
nonepoxide organic HAP emissions are required to be reduced by 90
percent for batch processes and 98 percent for continuous processes.
These requirements are the same for new and existing sources.
For vents from batch unit operations, the Group 1 criteria are the
same as the criteria in the Group 1 Polymers and Resins rule, except
that these criteria are applied to the combination of all vents for
this proposed polyether polyol rule, and the criteria are applied to
individual vents in the Polymers and Resins rule. The Group status is
determined by calculating the annual emissions from all the applicable
vents, and using these emissions to calculate a ``cut-off'' flow rate.
This cutoff flow rate is then compared to the actual combined annual
average flow rate for all the vents. If the actual annual average flow
rate is less than the cutoff flow rate, the group of vents is Group 1,
and must be controlled by 90 percent.
For continuous vents, the HON Group 1 criteria are used, except
that they are again applied to the aggregated vent streams. The group
of vents are Group 1 if they have a combined flow rate greater than or
equal to 0.005 standard cubic meters per minute, a combined HAP
concentration greater than or equal to 50 parts per million by volume
(ppmv), and a total resource effectiveness index value (TRE) less than
or equal to 1.0.
There is one notable difference in the provisions for nonepoxide
HAP emissions from making or altering the product for continuous
processes and the other continuous process vent provisions in the
proposed rule for epoxide processes (i.e., Epoxide emission
requirements and nonepoxide HAP emissions from catalyst extraction).
For the nonepoxide HAP emissions from making or altering the product,
the TRE of the combined vent streams is calculated after the final
recovery device. Therefore, the recovery device may be used to reduce
emissions so that the TRE is increased and the combined stream is Group
2, but the recovery device may not be used to achieve the required
percentage reduction for the combination of vents that are Group 1.
Monitoring is required for those Group 2 continuous process vent
streams whose combined stream characteristics result in a TRE index
value between 1.0 and 4.0, to ensure that the combination of those
streams do not become Group 1, which would then require control.
For either batch or continuous processes, the owner or operator can
make the Group 1/Group 2 determination, or the owner or operator can
elect to comply directly with the control requirements. As noted above,
the TRE index value is determined after the final recovery device in
the process or prior to venting to the atmosphere. The TRE calculation
involves an emissions test or engineering assessment and use of the TRE
equations in Sec. 63.115 of subpart G.
ii. Polyether polyols that use THF as a reactant. The proposed rule
directly references the HON process vent provisions in subpart G for
polyether polyols processes that use THF as a reactant. These
provisions require a Group 1/Group 2 determination (on an individual
vent basis), and the control of Group 1 process vent streams by 98
percent or the use of a flare.
b. Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions for process
vents. Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions necessary to
demonstrate compliance are also included in the process vent
provisions. Compliance with the monitoring provisions is based on
parametric monitoring of the combustion, recovery, or recapture device,
or monitoring of the process parameters if extended cook-out is used to
control epoxide emissions. Daily monitoring parameters are recorded to
determine compliance.
3. Wastewater Operations
For both polyether polyol subcategories the proposed wastewater
provisions are identical to the wastewater provisions in subparts F and
G. The proposed rule applies to any HAP-containing water, raw material,
intermediate, product, co-product, or waste material that exits any
polyether polyols production process unit equipment and has either (1)
a total organic HAP concentration of 5 ppmw or greater and a flow rate
of 0.02 liters per minute (lpm) or greater; or (2) a total organic HAP
concentration of 10,000 parts per million by weight (ppmw) or greater
at any flow rate. ``Wastewater,'' as defined in Sec. 63.101 of subpart
F, encompasses both maintenance wastewater and process wastewater. The
process wastewater provisions also apply to HAP-containing residuals
that are generated from the management and treatment of Group 1
wastewater streams. Examples of process wastewater streams include, but
are not limited to, wastewater streams exiting process unit equipment
(e.g., condenser stream decanter water), feed tank drawdown, vessel
washout/cleaning that is part of the routine batch cycle, and residuals
recovered from waste management units. Examples of maintenance
wastewater streams are those generated by descaling of heat exchanger
tube bundles, cleaning of distillation column traps, and draining of
pumps into an individual drain system.
a. Maintenance wastewater. For maintenance wastewater, the proposed
rule incorporates the requirements of Sec. 63.105 of subpart F for
maintenance wastewater. This requires owners or operators to prepare a
description of procedures that will be used to manage HAP-containing
wastewater created during maintenance activities, and to implement
these procedures.
b. Process wastewater. The Group 1/Group 2 approach from the HON is
also used for these proposed wastewater provisions, with Group 1
process wastewater streams requiring control and Group 2 process
wastewater streams not requiring control. For existing and new sources,
a Group 1 wastewater
[[Page 46811]]
stream is one with an average flow rate greater than or equal to 10 lpm
and a total organic HAP average concentration greater than or equal to
1,000 ppmw.
An owner or operator may determine the organic HAP concentration
and flow rate of wastewater stream either (1) at the point of
determination; or (2) downstream of the point of determination. If
wastewater stream characteristics are determined downstream of the
point of determination, an owner or operator must make corrections for
(1) losses by air emissions; (2) reduction of organic HAP concentration
or changes in flow rate by mixing with other water or wastewater
streams; and (3) reduction in flow rate or organic HAP concentration by
treating or otherwise handling the wastewater stream to remove or
destroy HAP. An owner or operator can determine the flow rate and
organic HAP concentration for the point of determination by (1)
sampling; (2) using engineering knowledge; or (3) using pilot-scale or
bench-scale test data. Both the applicability determination and the
Group 1/Group 2 determination must reflect the wastewater
characteristics before losses due to volatilization, a concentration
differential due to dilution, or a change in organic HAP concentration
or flow rate due to treatment.
There are instances where an owner or operator can bypass the group
determination. An owner or operator is allowed to designate a
wastewater stream or mixture of wastewater streams to be a Group 1
wastewater stream without actually determining the flow rate and
organic HAP concentration for the point of determination. Using this
option, an owner or operator can simply declare that a wastewater
stream or mixture of wastewater streams is a Group 1 wastewater stream
and that the emissions from the stream(s) are controlled from the point
of determination through treatment. An owner or operator is required to
determine the wastewater stream characteristics (i.e., organic HAP
concentration and flow rate) for the designated Group 1 wastewater
stream in order to establish the treatment requirements in Sec. 63.138.
Also, an owner or operator who elects to use the process unit
alternative in Sec. 63.138(d) of subpart G or the 95-percent biological
treatment option in section 63.138(e) of subpart G is not required to
make a Group 1/Group 2 determination.
Controls must be applied to Group 1 wastewater streams, unless the
source complies with the source-wide mass flow rate provisions of
Secs. 63.138(c)(5) or (c)(6) of subpart G; or implements process
changes that reduce emission as specified in Sec. 63.138(c)(7) of
subpart G. Control requirements include (1) suppressing emissions from
the point of determination to the treatment device; (2) recycling the
wastewater stream or treating the wastewater stream to the required Fr
values for each organic HAP as listed in table 9 of subpart G (The
required Fr values in table 9 of subpart G are ``fraction removed'' (or
removal efficiency) based on a steam stripper, with specified operating
parameters, as the control technology); (3) recycling any residuals or
treating any residuals to destroy the total combined HAP mass flow rate
by 99 percent or more; and (4) controlling the air emissions generated
by treatment processes. While emission controls are not required for
Group 2 wastewater streams, owners or operators may opt to include them
in management and treatment options.
Suppression of emissions from the point of determination to the
treatment device will be achieved by using covers and enclosures and
closed-vent systems to collect organic HAP vapors from the wastewater
and convey them to treatment devices. Air emissions routed through
closed-vent systems from covers, enclosures, and treatment processes
must be reduced by 95 percent for combustion or recovery devices; or to
a level of 20 ppmv for combustion devices.
The treatment requirements are designed to reduce the organic HAP
content in the wastewater prior to placement in units without air
emissions controls, and thus to reduce the HAP emissions to the
atmosphere. Section G of the preamble provides several compliance
options, including percent reduction, effluent concentration
limitations, and mass removal.
For demonstrating compliance with the various requirements, owners
or operators have a choice of using a specified design, conducting
performance tests, or documenting engineering calculations. Appropriate
compliance, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions are
included in the regulation.
4. Equipment Leaks
The equipment leak provisions in the proposed rule refer directly
to the requirements contained in subpart H. The standards would apply
to equipment in organic HAP service 300 or more hours per year that is
associated with a PMPU, including valves, pumps, connectors,
compressors, pressure relief devices, open-ended valves or lines,
sampling connection systems, instrumentation systems, surge control
vessels, bottoms receivers, and agitators. The provisions also apply to
closed-vent systems and combustion, recovery, or recapture devices used
to control emissions from any of the listed equipment.
a. Pumps and valves. This proposed standard requires leak detection
and repair (LDAR) for pumps in light liquid service and for valves in
gas or light liquid service. Standards for both are implemented in
three phases. The first and second phases for both types of equipment
consist of an LDAR program, with lower leak definitions in the second
phase. The LDAR program involves a periodic check for organic vapor
leaks with a portable instrument; if leaks are found, they must be
repaired within a certain period of time. In the third phase, the
periodic monitoring (a work practice standard) is combined with a
performance requirement for an allowable percent leaking components.
The standard requires monthly monitoring of pumps using an
instrument and weekly visual inspections for indications of leaks. In
the first two phases of the valve standard, quarterly monitoring is
required. In phase three, semiannual or annual monitoring may be used
by process units with less than 1 percent and less than 0.5 percent
leaking valves, respectively.
In phase three, if the base performance levels for a type of
equipment are not achieved, owners or operators must, in the case of
pumps, enter into a quality improvement program (QIP), and in the case
of valves may either enter into a QIP or implement monthly LDAR. The
QIP is a concept that enables plants exceeding the base performance
levels to eventually achieve the desired levels without incurring
penalty or being in a noncompliance status. As long as the requirements
of the QIP are met, the plant is in compliance. The basic QIP consists
of information gathering, determining superior performing technologies,
and replacing poorer performers with the superior technologies until
the base performance levels are achieved.
b. Connectors. The rule also requires LDAR of connectors in gas or
light liquid service. The monitoring frequency for connectors is
determined by the percent leaking connectors in the process unit and
the consistency of performance. Process units that have 0.5 percent or
greater leaking connectors are required to monitor all connectors
annually. Units that have less than 0.5 percent may monitor biannually
and units that show less than 0.5 percent for
[[Page 46812]]
two monitoring cycles may monitor once every four years.
c. Other equipment. Subpart H also contains standards for other
types of equipment, compressors, open-ended lines, pressure relief
devices, and sampling connection systems. Compressors are required to
be controlled using a barrier-fluid seal system, by a closed vent
system to a combustion, recovery, or recapture device, or must be
demonstrated to have no leaks greater than 500 ppm HAP. Sampling
connections must be closed-purge or closed-loop system, or must be
controlled using a closed vent system to a combustion, recovery, or
recapture device. Agitators must either be monitored for leaks or use
systems that are better designed such as dual mechanical seals. Pumps,
valves, connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid service;
instrumentation systems; and pressure relief devices in liquid service
are subject to instrumental monitoring only if evidence of a potential
leak is found through sight, sound, or smell. Instrumentation systems
consist of smaller pipes and tubing that carry samples of process
fluids to be analyzed to determine process operating conditions or
systems for measurement of process conditions.
Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers are required to be
controlled using a closed vent system vented to a combustion, recovery,
or recapture device. However, the applicability of controls to surge
control vessels and bottoms receivers is based on the size of the
vessel and the vapor pressure of the contents. The criteria for
determining whether controls are required for surge control vessels and
bottoms receivers are the same as for storage vessels.
d. Other provisions. Under certain conditions, delay of repair
beyond the required period may be acceptable. Examples of these
situations include where: (1) A piece of equipment cannot be repaired
without a process shutdown, (2) equipment is taken out of HAP service,
(3) emissions from repair will exceed emissions from delay of repair
until the next shutdown, and (4) equipment with better leak performance
such as pump with single mechanical seals are replaced with dual
mechanical seals.
In addition, specific alternative standards are included for batch
processes and enclosed buildings. For batch processes, the owner or
operator can choose either to meet similar standards to those for
continuous processes with monitoring frequency pro-rated to time in use
of HAP, or to periodically pressure test the entire system. For
enclosed buildings, the owner or operator may forego monitoring if the
building is kept under a negative pressure and emissions are routed
through a closed vent system to an approved combustion, recovery, or
recapture device.
The equipment leak standards require the use of Method 21 of
appendix A of part 60 to detect leaks. Method 21 requires a portable
organic vapor analyzer to monitor for leaks from equipment in use. Test
procedures using either a gas or a liquid for pressure testing the
batch system are specified to detect for leaks.
The standards would require certain records to demonstrate
compliance with the standard, and the records must be retained in a
readily accessible recordkeeping system. Subpart H requires the records
be maintained for equipment that would be subject to the standards,
testing associated with batch processes, design specifications of
closed vent systems and combustion, recovery, or recapture devices,
test results from performance tests, and information required by
equipment in the QIP.
G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to each
emission source type are included in the applicable sections of the
proposed rule. Section 63.1439 of the proposed rule provides general
reporting, recordkeeping, and testing requirements.
The general reporting, recordkeeping, and testing requirements of
this subpart are very similar to those found in subparts F, G, and U.
The proposed rule also incorporates provisions of subpart A of part 63.
A table included in the proposed rule designates which sections of
subpart A apply to the proposed rule. This rule incorporates by
reference the General Provisions in subpart A as promulgated on March
13, 1994. However, the EPA is in the process of drafting amendments to
the General Provisions. If this subpart is promulgated subsequent to
the promulgation of the amendments to the General Provisions, the
amended General Provisions will be incorporated into this subpart.
The proposed rule requires sources to keep records and submit
reports of information necessary to determine applicability and
document compliance. The proposed rule requires retention of hourly
average values of monitored parameters for continuous process vents.
For batch process vents, the proposed rule requires daily average
values of monitored parameters. If there is a monitoring parameter
excursion, the 15-minute values for the excursion period must be
retained. The proposed rule also requires that records of all residual
HAP content test results must be kept for five years.
Section 63.1439 of the proposed rule lists the following types of
reports that must be submitted to the Administrator as appropriate: (1)
Start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan; (2) Application for Approval
of Construction or Reconstruction; (3) Initial Notification; (4)
Precompliance Report, (5) Notification of Compliance Status; (6)
Periodic Reports; (7) Other reports, and; (8) Operating permit
application. Operating permit may be substituted for a Precompliance
Report. The requirements for each of the eight types of reports are
summarized below. As can be noted, Sec. 63.1435 incorporates the
reporting requirements of subpart H, which require owners and operators
to submit three types of reports: (1) An Initial Notification; (2) a
Notification of Compliance Status; and (3) Periodic Reports.
1. Start-up, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan
The plan would describe procedures for operating and maintaining
the affected source during periods of start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction and a program for corrective action for malfunctioning
process and air pollution equipment used to comply with this subpart.
2. Application for Approval of Construction or Reconstruction
The proposed rule requires that the owners or operator comply with
Sec. 63.5 of subpart A regarding the application for approval of
construction or reconstruction, excluding the provisions specified in
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2), and (d)(3)(ii) of subpart
A.
3. Initial Notification
The Initial Notification would be required within 120 calender days
after the effective date of the rule and shall provide the following
information:
(a) The name and address of the owner or operator;
(b) The address (i.e., physical location) of the affected source;
(c) An identification of the relevant standard, or other
requirement, that is the basis of the notification and the source's
compliance date;
(d) A brief description of the nature, size, design, and method of
operation of the source, including its operating design capacity and an
identification of each point of emission for each HAP, or if a
definitive identification is not yet
[[Page 46813]]
possible, a preliminary identification of each point of emission for
each HAP, and;
(e) A statement of whether or not the affected source is a major
source.
4. Precompliance Report
Affected sources requesting an extension for compliance, or
requesting approval to use alternative monitoring parameters,
alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, or alternative
controls, shall submit a Precompliance Report.
5. Notification of Compliance Status
The Notification of Compliance Status would be required to be
submitted within 150 days after the source's compliance date. It
contains the information for emission points that need to comply with
the rule, that are necessary to demonstrate that compliance has been
achieved. Such information includes, but is not limited to, the results
of any performance test for continuous and/or batch process vents, an
ECO, and wastewater emission points; one complete test report for each
test method used for a particular kind of emission point; design
analyses for storage vessels and wastewater emission points; and
monitored parameter levels for each emission point and supporting data
for the designated level. The Notification of Compliance Status
required by subpart H must be submitted within 90 days after the
compliance date.
6. Periodic Reports
Generally, Periodic Reports would be submitted semiannually.
However, there is an exception. If monitoring results show that the
parameter values for an emission point are above the maximum or below
the minimum established levels for more than one percent of the
operating time in a reporting period, or the monitoring system is out
of service for more than five percent of the time, the regulatory
authority may request that the owner or operator submit quarterly
reports for that emission point. After one year, semiannual reporting
can be resumed, unless the regulatory authority requests continuation
of quarterly reports.
All Periodic Reports would include information required to be
reported under the recordkeeping and reporting provisions for each
emission point.
For continuously monitored parameters, the Periodic Report must
report when ``excursions'' occur. Table 5 shows what constitutes an
excursion.
Table 5.--Summary of Excursions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission source type Type of excursion Description of excursion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuous Process Vents............. Daily average When the daily average of a monitored parameter
exceedance. is above the maximum, or below the minimum,
established level.
Insufficient monitoring Insufficient monitoring data is when an owner or
data. operator fails to obtain a valid hour of data
for at least 75 percent of the operating hours
during an operating day. Four 15-minute
parameter measurements must be obtained to
constitute a valid hour of data.
Batch Process Vents.................. Batch cycle daily When the batch cycle daily average of a
average exceedance. monitored parameter is above the maximum, or
below the minimum, established level.
Insufficient monitoring Insufficient monitoring data is when an owner or
data. operator fails to obtain valid parameter
measurements for at least 75 percent of the 15-
minute periods during an operating day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periodic Reports would also include results of any performance
tests conducted during the reporting period and instances when required
inspections revealed problems. Additional information on the source is
required to report under its operating permit would also be described
in Periodic Reports.
Periodic Reports for subpart H must be submitted every six months
and must contain summary information on the LDAR program changes to the
process unit, changes in monitoring frequency or monitoring
alternatives, and/or initiation of a QIP.
7. Other Reports
Other reports required under the proposed rule include process
changes that change the compliance status of process vents, and request
for extensions of the allowable repair period and notifications of
inspections for storage vessels and wastewater.
8. Operating Permit Application
An owner or operator who submits an operating permit application
instead of a Precompliance Report shall submit the information
specified in the Precompliance Report, as applicable, with the
operating permit application.
V. Discussion of Major Issues
The Administrator welcomes comments from interested persons on any
aspect of the proposed standards, and on any statement in the preamble
or the referenced supporting documents. The proposed standards were
developed on the basis of information available. The Administrator is
specifically requesting factual information that may support either the
approach taken in the proposed standards or an alternative approach. To
receive proper consideration, documentation or data should be provided.
Specifically, the EPA is requesting comment and data on the following
issues: (1) The ECO definition and onset point, (2) the performance
test protocol for determining compliance of combustion, recovery and
recapture devices on short, batch process vent episodes, (3) the
specifications of the performance test for the ECO, (4) the approach to
determine an outlet concentration cutoff that is appropriate, if any,
for the process vent epoxide limitation for new affected sources, (5)
the subcategorization of the industry based on the nature of the feed
to the combustion, recovery, or recapture device, (6) the monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, (7) the epoxide emission
factor as an alternative to the percent emission reduction requirement,
(8) the nonepoxide organic HAP process vent emissions requirements, (9)
whether the HAP list in table 4 is all inclusive, and (10) the
definition of an applicable source and a PMPU.
The extended cook-out (ECO) is included as a control option for the
first time in this standard, and the EPA requests comments on the
definition of the ECO, and the calculation procedures that were used to
determine the onset value (i.e., the point when uncontrolled emissions
are calculated). The definition of the ECO is based on the input of a
team of industry representatives who have used the ECO to control their
process vent epoxide emissions. For the purposes of determining a
default onset for an ECO, the EPA used information provided by SPI
representatives. Some of the SPI facilities have used this control
option for a number of years with permit
[[Page 46814]]
restrictions based on this control option. The SPI representatives
provided the EPA with calculations that demonstrated the breakpoint for
when a cookout is no longer economically feasible, which is defined as
the onset for the ECO. This calculation contains confidential business
information regarding the batch times, profit margins, and reaction
rate equations for four different product types and, therefore, is not
available for public review. However, the approach used to establish
the onset of an ECO, as the point in time when continuing the reaction
is no longer economically advantageous, and the approach used to
determine the default onset of an ECO, are available for review (Docket
No. A-96-38, Item No. II-B-7). The SPI determined, using conservative
assumptions, that the ECO for four product types occurred when the
amount of epoxide in the reactor is 25 percent of the amount in the
reactor at the end of the epoxide feed step. These four product types
were: EO-capped surfactants, PO-capped surfactants, EO-capped
functional fluids, and PO-capped functional fluids. It was explained to
the EPA that these are four typical product types in the polyether
polyols industry. The onset value determined by SPI was established as
the default ECO onset value for the purposes of this regulation.
Facilities may accept this default value as the onset for an ECO at
their facility, or they may calculate their own ECO onset point. To
calculate a site-specific ECO onset, facility representatives are
directed to the Definition of Extended Cookout Memorandum (Docket No.
A-96-38, Item No. II-B-7).
Also, with respect to the ECO control option, a first order
reaction rate equation, with respect to the epoxide, was used to
determine the concentration of the unreacted epoxide in the reactor
vessel. The EPA is requesting documentation to support or refute the
first order reaction rate equation used in the ECO calculations.
The proposed rule requires an initial performance test to
demonstrate that the ECO meets the performance represented by the
engineering equations used to estimate the amount of unreacted epoxide
in the reactor. This would be a one time test similar to the
performance testing required for add-on combustion, recovery, or
recapture devices. The proposed rule is requiring that samples of the
liquid and vapor space be taken both before and after the ECO, and that
these samples be analyzed for unreacted epoxide concentration. The
proposed rule is requiring that the samples be analyzed using Method
18. The EPA is requesting comments on the specifics of the test method
and sample procedure required.
The EPA is proposing to require facilities to sample the inlet and
outlet streams to the combustion, recovery or recapture device in order
to determine compliance with the process vent provisions. Industry
representatives have expressed several concerns with the requirement to
sample emissions from process vents in batch unit operations. Industry
representatives are concerned with the feasibility, accuracy, and
safety of taking such samples. Typically, in batch unit operations,
material exits the reactor in a short period of time following each
batch, and the flow and concentration of the process vent emissions are
not constant. As a result, industry asserts, that capturing
representative and meaningful samples is not feasible using traditional
stack sampling methods found in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60. Industry
representatives also indicate that because there is a significant drop
in pressure during the brief course of the venting, the results of any
performance test are not likely to be very accurate. Industry also has
expressed concerns that attempting to take samples during venting would
raise significant safety issues for plant personnel given the potential
flammability and toxicity of the stream. Industry maintains that pre-
vent and post-vent samples with appropriate engineering calculations on
flow rates would provide adequate results to demonstrate the
performance of the combustion, recovery or recapture device. However,
no specific procedures to use in this regulation were provided. The
EPA, therefore, is asking for comment and information on alternatives
to the proposed testing to determine compliance for process vents from
batch unit operations.
The proposed standard for EO and PO process vent emissions at
existing sources includes an alternative concentration limit of 20
ppmv. Thus, an existing source can comply with the control requirements
of the NESHAP by either achieving an emission reduction of 98 percent
(by weight), or maintaining an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv from the
outlet of a combustion, recovery, or recapture device, whichever is
less stringent. Including this option in the NESHAP recognizes that, as
inlet concentrations to a control device drop, there is a corresponding
decrease in percent reduction of the device and a leveling off of the
outlet concentration from the device.
Industry representatives requested that an alternative
concentration limit also be developed for EO and PO process vent
emissions at new sources. As with existing sources, the new sources
would have the option to either achieve 99.9 percent control or a
specified concentration limit, whichever is less stringent.
In responding to this request, EPA considered a concentration limit
of 1 ppmv. This was based on concentration levels achieved, and
verified by emission testing, by the facility identified as the best
performer. These outlet concentrations were achieved even though high
concentrations were being fed to the device. Industry representatives
argued in a May 7, 1997 letter (Docket No. A-96-38, Item No. II-D-55)
that 1 ppmv may not be achievable. They asserted that the EPA method
used for the performance test does not speciate organic HAP and,
therefore, should not be used to support a concentration limit unless
the same test method is permitted within the NESHAP to demonstrate
compliance. They also contended that EPA has historically used 20 ppmv
as an alternative for standards that are combustion control-based. EPA
has pointed out, however, that these other standards are based on
incinerators required to meet only a 98 percent destruction efficiency.
Therefore, the EPA has decided to not include an alternative outlet
concentration limit for new sources in the proposed rule, but is
requesting information for determining an appropriate alternative limit
for the standard based on an incinerator achieving 99.9 percent
control. For example, test data from the 99.9 percent incinerator using
the test methods and procedures prescribed in the proposed rule would
establish a basis for such an alternative. If public comments provide
sufficient information, the EPA will consider establishing an
alternative concentration limit for the final rule.
The EPA is soliciting comment on the appropriateness of the new
source MACT requirements for process vents that emit epoxides. As
explained in the Basis and Purpose Document, the EPA set the control
efficiency based on the data from the best performing facility. The SPI
representatives, however, have contended that this facility is not a
similar source because, its reactor vents during the epoxide feed step
of the reaction. The SPI asserts that ``the impacts of this method of
operation would be to send a very high concentration of HAP to the
control device as a continuous or semi-continuous stream, resulting in
an artificially high destruction efficiency (compared to a facility
that does not
[[Page 46815]]
vent continuously)'' (Docket No. A-96-38, Item No. II-D-46). They argue
that this is not the typical mode of operation for this industry, and
that this facility should be in a subcategory of its own. The EPA
recognizes that different facilities may vent their reactors at
different times in the reaction resulting in different concentrations
and flows. The EPA also recognizes that the number of reactor trains
feeding to the same recapture, recovery, or control device will affect
the flow characteristics of the feed stream.
The EPA does not have data on the process vent epoxide
concentration, description of when in the process the venting occurs,
or venting episode duration from any of the facilities in the database.
Therefore, at this time, the EPA has no basis for determining whether
subcategorization of the industry is appropriate, or for determining
where a subcategorization line should be drawn, if appropriate. Data to
substantiate the SPI's argument that the facility setting the new
source MACT floor is not a similar source will be necessary before the
EPA can consider making revisions to the new source MACT floor level of
control for process vent epoxide emissions.
The EPA is requesting the following information needed from
industry in order to determine if a subcategory is appropriate, and
what it should be.
(1) Facility name and location
(2) Product categories (i.e., surfactants, polyols, etc.) made at the
facility in 1993
(3) Process vent uncontrolled and controlled HAP emissions for 1993
(4) Description of the combustion, recovery, or recapture device,
including
(a) Type of device (e.g., scrubber, flare etc.)
(b) Control efficiency and basis
(5) Information about the reactor feed characteristics to the control
device, submitted in either of the following formats:
(a) Flow and concentration data (from monitoring instrumentation)
for a single, typical day; or,
(b) A narrative description of a typical day's feed to a common
combustion, recovery, or recapture device. In the narrative, an
estimate of the total amount of time per day there is feed to the
device is required along with an estimate of the range of HAP
concentration during the typical day, on an episode or daily basis
(6) A statement regarding whether the facility vents excess pressure
from the reactor during oxide addition
The monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting provisions in this
regulation differ slightly from those in the HON. This proposed
regulation will require that monitors continue to operate during
periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction. Monitoring records from
periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction will provide evidence of
whether start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plans are followed and will
provide the Agency with valuable information for assessment of the
adequacy of the source's start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
These records will also provide evidence of whether start-ups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions occur during periods at issue and whether
the source takes necessary steps to mitigate environmental impacts.
Also, this proposed regulation enables a source that is subject to this
regulation and to provisions in either 40 CFR part 264 or 40 CFR part
265 to continue to demonstrate compliance in accordance with 40 CFR
part 264 or 265, except the source must report all excursions (as
defined in this proposed regulation) in the semiannual report. The EPA
is asking for comments on these provisions to determine whether the
Agency should adopt these additional requirements in the final
regulation.
For epoxide emissions, the proposed rule allows sources to comply
with the process vent requirements by maintaining epoxide emissions at
a level below the specified emission factors of 1.7 x 10-2
kilograms of epoxide emissions per megagram of product made (kg/Mg) for
existing sources and 4.4 x 10-3 kg/Mg for new sources. The
approach used for determining these emission factors is explained in
the Supplementary Information Document. To verify compliance with this
option, the owner or operator is required to calculate annual epoxide
emissions and divide the emissions by the annual polyether polyol
production. The annual production is annual mass of polyether polyol
product produced from the applicable PMPU. The EPA is requesting
comments on the method of calculation of the emission factors and
whether the rule adequately describes the units of production for this
determination.
In some instances, nonepoxide organic HAP are used in the reactor
in making the polyether polyol product or modifying the product
properties before final storage. Examples of such uses would include
organic HAP used as an initiator, a catalyst, or as a reaction solvent.
The proposed regulation requires that a group determination be made on
the combination of all process vents that emit these nonepoxide HAP,
and that combinations of vents that are Group 1 be controlled. The EPA
recognizes that a process vent from which these nonepoxide HAP are
emitted would be subject to the epoxide emission reduction requirements
as well as the requirements for nonepoxide organic HAP emissions. If a
combustion, recovery, or recapture device is used to reduce epoxide
emissions from the vent, then that same device would also reduce the
emissions of the nonepoxide HAP. However, if extended cookout is the
control technique utilized by the facility to reduce epoxide emissions,
then the nonepoxide HAP emissions would not be affected, resulting in
the need to address these emissions. The EPA is interested in methods
to address the nonepoxide HAP emissions from making or modifying the
product that alleviate the dual requirement problem mentioned above.
Some of the approaches that the EPA has considered include: Requiring a
group determination only for nonepoxide HAP emissions that are not
controlled along with epoxide emissions; requiring all HAP emissions
(epoxide and nonepoxide) from making or modifying the product to be
reduced by the amount specified in the proposed rule for epoxide
emissions; eliminating the group determination provisions and requiring
a specified percent reduction for nonepoxide HAP emissions from all
vents above a de minimis level, and; making all nonepoxide HAP
emissions (from making or modifying the product and from catalyst
extraction) subject to the same requirements. The EPA is requesting
comments on input of these options, or the identification of other
options. Comments should include a recommended approach, along with
rationale for the recommendation.
The proposed rule lists specific HAP in table 4 used to determine
compliance. The EPA requests comments on whether this list is all
inclusive.
The EPA is requesting comments on the definition of the affected
source, the PMPU and ``make or modify the product.'' The EPA is asking
for these comments in an attempt to ensure that all emission types
related to the manufacture of polyether polyols are included in the
affected source.
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
This section presents the air, non-air environmental (waste and
solid waste), energy, cost and economic impacts resulting from the
control of HAP emissions under this rule.
[[Page 46816]]
A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP
The proposed rule will affect facilities that produce polyether
polyols and are major sources in themselves, or that are located at a
major source plant site. Based on available information, 92 percent of
the facilities at which polyether polyols are produced 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 undertaken by each individual source.
Impacts are presented relative to a baseline reflecting the level
of control in the absence of the rule. Baseline impacts were
extrapolated from the database to an estimated 78 polyether polyol
facilities affected by the NESHAP nationwide. See the baseline
emissions memorandum in the Basis and Purpose Document for a detailed
discussion of this approach. The impacts for existing sources were
estimated by bringing each facility's control level up to the levels of
the proposed standards. According to the SPI representatives, no new
sources are projected to be constructed in the next five years.
Therefore, no new source impacts were estimated.
B. Primary Air Impacts
These proposed standards are estimated to reduce HAP emissions from
all existing sources of polyether polyols by 1,810 Mg/yr. This
represents a 47 percent reduction from the baseline level of emissions.
This reduction is relatively low since several affected facilities have
already installed stringent pollution controls in response to State air
toxics rules.
C. Other Environmental Impacts
All the HAP being reduced by this regulation are also volatile
organic compounds (VOC); thus, a reduction of 1,810 Mg/yr of VOC is
anticipated as a result of implementing these standards. However,
emissions of criteria pollutants are estimated to increase by 80 Mg/yr
as a result of operating process vent and wastewater emission control
systems to comply with the standards. Therefore, the net reduction in
criteria pollutants resulting from this regulation is anticipated to be
1,730 Mg/yr.
D. Energy Impacts
The total nationwide energy demands that would result from
implementing the process vent and wastewater requirements are around
4.7 X 10\10\ British thermal units annually (Btu/yr).
E. Costs Impacts
Cost impacts include the capital costs of new control equipment,
the cost of energy (supplemental fuel, steam, and electricity) required
to operate control equipment, operation and maintenance costs, and the
cost savings generated by reducing the loss of valuable raw materials
in the form of emissions. Also, cost impacts include the costs of
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting associated with these proposed
standards.
The rule requirements are based on the floor level of control for
the following emission types for polyether polyols made with epoxides:
Storage vessels, process vent epoxide emissions, process vent
nonepoxide emissions from catalyst extraction, and equipment leaks. The
Agency selected requirements more stringent than the floor for
wastewater emissions and for nonepoxide organic HAP process vent
emissions from making or modifying the product. For polyether polyols
made with THF, the Agency selected requirements more stringent than the
MACT floor level of control for all of the emission types (i.e.,
storage, process vent emissions, equipment leaks and wastewater). The
HON level of control was considered as the level of control more
stringent than the MACT floor level of control for each of the emission
types listed above, except for process vents from batch unit operations
where control levels established in the ``Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions From Batch Processes--Alternative Control Techniques
Information Document'' (EPA-453/R-94-020) (``Batch ACT'') were
considered. The HON level of control was considered because polyether
polyols manufacturing plants are fairly similar to sources that are
subject to the HON. Additionally, the HON level of control had received
extensive evaluation during the development of the HON, at which time
the EPA concluded that the cost and other impacts of the HON levels
were reasonable. Similarly, the estimated cost-effectiveness for the
Batch ACT was determined to be comparable to the cost-effectiveness of
the HON continuous vent provisions.
Under the proposed rule, it is estimated that total capital costs
for existing sources would be $10.2 million (August 1996 dollars) and
that total annual costs would be $7.7 million per year. It is expected
that the actual compliance cost impacts of the proposed rule could be
less than presented because of the potential to use common combustion,
recovery, or recapture devices, upgrade existing combustion, recovery,
or recapture devices, use other less expensive control technologies, or
implement pollution prevention. Because the effect of such practices is
highly site-specific and data were unavailable to estimate how often
the lower cost compliance practices could be utilized, it is not
possible to quantify the amount by which actual compliance cost would
be reduced.
F. Economic Impacts
The goal of the economic impact analysis is to estimate the market
response of the polyether polyols industry to the emission standards
and determine any adverse effects that may result from the regulation.
Approximately 78 facilities owned by 36 different companies producing
polyether polyols domestically may potentially be affected by the
regulation.
Since the nationwide annualized cost of this regulation of $7.7
million represents approximately 0.06 percent of the estimated 1996
sales revenues for domestically produced polyether polyols, the EPA
determined that the regulation is not likely to have a significant
impact on this industry as a whole. For this reason, a streamlined
economic analysis was performed to determine facility-specific impacts.
Facility-specific impacts were examined by calculating the ratio of the
estimated annualized costs of controls for each facility to the
estimated revenues per facility (i.e., cost-to-sales ratio) to assess
the likelihood of facility closures and employment impacts. A cost-to-
sales ratio exceeding one percent was determined to be an initial
indicator of the potential for a significant facility impact.
For only one facility out of the 78 facilities affected by the
regulation do costs exceed one percent of sales. This firm is estimated
to experience a cost-to-sales ratio of 1.5 percent. Based on an
analysis of the costs of compliance compared to facility and company
financial data for this firm, the EPA concludes it is unlikely that the
company owning this facility will choose to close it. The company is
financially robust and the costs are a small share of the total company
sales and net income. Therefore, the facility-specific impacts are not
considered to be significant for any facility affected by the
regulation. The generally small scale of the impacts suggests that
there will also be no significant impacts on markets for the products
made using polyether polyols, such as polyurethanes. For more
information, consult the economic impact report entitled ``Economic
Analysis Of Air Pollution Regulations: Polyether Polyols Production,
May 1997.''
[[Page 46817]]
VIII. 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 Act.
Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the proposed standards for
polyether polyols 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-95-20.
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 on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
this Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875
In compliance with Executive Order 12875, EPA has involved State,
local, and tribal governments where the sources occur in the
development of this rule. These governments are not directly impacted
by the rule; i.e., they are not required to purchase control systems to
meet the requirements of the rule. However, they will be required to
implement this rule; e.g., incorporate the rule into permits and
enforce the rule. They will collect permit fees that will be used to
offset the resource burden of implementing the rule.
E. 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. 1811.01), and a copy may be obtained
from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division (2137); U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street SW; Washington, DC 20460,
or by calling (202) 260-2740. The public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 1,046 hours per
respondent for the first year and 162 hours for each of the second and
third years, including time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. An Agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Ch. 15.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any
OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The EPA analyzed the potential impact of the rule on small entities
and determined that only 7 of the 36 polyether polyol producing firms
are small entities--not a substantial number of entities. Of these 7,
no small companies will experience an increase in costs as a result of
the promulgation of today's rule that is greater than one percent of
revenues. Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), I certify that this rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Agency
did not prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
Although the statute does not require the EPA to prepare an RFA
because the Administrator has certified that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the EPA did undertake a limited assessment, to the extent it could, of
possible outcomes and the economic effect of these on small polyether
polyol producing entities. The initial version of that evaluation is
available in the administrative record for today's action.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector, and to seek input from State,
local, and tribal governments on certain regulatory actions. EPA has
determined that this action does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. (The analysis of the costs associated with this action is
referenced in paragraph VI.E of this preamble.) Therefore, this action
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The requirements of sections 203 and 204 of UMRA which relate to
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments and to regulatory proposals that contain a
significant Federal intergovernmental
[[Page 46818]]
mandate, respectively, also do not apply to today's rule because the
rule affects only the private sector, i.e., facilities that manufacture
chemical products for sale.
H. 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 requirements for testing.
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.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 15, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR AFFECTED SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et. seq.
2. It is proposed that part 63 be amended by adding subpart PPP,
consisting of Secs. 63.1420 through 63.1439, to read as follows:
Subpart PPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions for Polyether Polyols Production
Sec.
63.1420 Applicability and designation of affected sources.
63.1421 Delegation of authority.
63.1422 Compliance schedule and relationship to existing applicable
rules.
63.1423 Definitions.
63.1424 Emission standards.
63.1425 Process vent control requirements.
63.1426 Process vent requirements for determining organic HAP
concentration, control efficiency, and overall organic HAP emission
reduction for a PAPPU.
63.1427 Process vent requirements for processes using extended
cookout as an epoxide emission reduction device.
63.1428 Process vent requirements for group determination of PMPUs
using a nonepoxide organic HAP to make or modify the product.
63.1429 Process vent monitoring requirements.
63.1430 Process vent reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
63.1431 Emission Factor Plan Requirements.
63.1432 Storage vessel provisions.
63.1433 Wastewater provisions.
63.1434 Equipment leak provisions.
63.1435 Heat exchanger provisions.
63.1436 [Reserved]
63.1437 Additional test methods and procedures.
63.1438 Parameter monitoring levels and excursions.
63.1439 General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.
Subpart PPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions for Polyether Polyols Production
Sec. 63.1420 Applicability and designation of affected sources.
(a) Definition of affected source. The provisions of this subpart
apply to each affected source. Affected sources are described in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
(1) An affected source is either an existing affected source or a
new affected source. Existing affected source is defined in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, and new affected source is defined in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section.
(2) Emission points and equipment. The affected source also
includes the emission points and equipment specified in paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(vi) of this section that are associated with
each group of polyether polyol manufacturing process units (PMPU)
making up an affected source, as defined in Sec. 63.1423.
(i) Each waste management unit.
(ii) Maintenance wastewater.
(iii) Each heat exchange system.
(iv) Equipment required by, or utilized as a method of compliance
with, this subpart which may include control techniques and recovery
devices.
(v) Product finishing operation.
(vi) Each feed or catalyst operation.
(3) An existing affected source is defined as each group of one or
more PMPU that is not part of a new affected source, as defined in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and that is located at a plant site
that is a major source.
(4) A new affected source is defined as a source meeting the
criteria of paragraph (a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii), or (a)(4)(iii) of this
section.
(i) At a site previously without organic HAP emission points (i.e.,
a ``greenfield'' site), each group of one or more PMPUs that is part of
a major source, and on which construction for the PMPU(s) commenced
after September 4, 1997;
(ii) A PMPU meeting the criteria in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this
section; or
(iii) A reconstructed affected source meeting the criteria in
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section.
(b) PMPUs without organic HAP. The owner or operator of a PMPU that
is part of an affected source, as defined in paragraph (a) of this
section, that does not use or manufacture any organic HAP shall comply
with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
Such a PMPU is not subject to any other provisions of this subpart and
is not required to comply with the provisions of subpart A of this
part.
(1) Retain information, data, and analyses used to document the
basis for the determination that the PMPU does not use any organic HAP.
Types of information that could document this determination include,
but are not limited to, records of chemicals purchased for the process,
analyses of process stream composition, engineering calculations, or
process knowledge.
(2) When requested by the Administrator, demonstrate that the PMPU
does not use any organic HAP.
(c) Emission points not subject to the provisions of this subpart.
The affected source includes the emission points listed in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(12) of this section, but these emission points are
not subject to the requirements of this subpart or the provisions of
subpart A of this part.
(1) Equipment that does not contain organic HAP and is located at a
PMPU that is part of an affected source;
(2) Stormwater from segregated sewers;
(3) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems in segregated
sewers;
(4) Spills;
(5) Water from safety showers;
(6) Water from testing of deluge systems;
(7) Water from testing of firefighting systems;
(8) Vessels and equipment storing and/or handling material that
contains no organic HAP or organic HAP as impurities only;
[[Page 46819]]
(9) Equipment that operates in organic HAP service for less than
300 hours during the calendar year;
(10) Loading racks, loading arms, or loading hoses that only
transfer liquids containing HAP as impurities;
(11) Loading racks, loading arms, or loading hoses that vapor
balance during all loading operations; and
(12) Utility fluids, such as heat transfer fluids.
(d) Processes exempted from the affected source. The processes
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section are not
part of the affected source and are exempted from the requirements of
both this subpart and from the provisions of subpart A of this part.
(1) Research and development facilities; and
(2) Solvent reclamation, recovery, or recycling operations at
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF)
requiring a permit under 40 CFR part 270 that are separate entities and
not part of a PMPU to which this subpart applies.
(3) Reactions or processing that occur after the manufacture of
polyether polyol products.
(e) Primary product determination and applicability. The primary
product of a process unit shall be determined according to the
procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section.
Paragraphs (e)(3) through (e)(4) of this section describe whether or
not a process unit is subject to this subpart. Paragraphs (e)(5)
through (e)(7) of this section discuss compliance for those PMPUs
operated as flexible operation units, as specified in paragraph (e)(2)
of this section.
(1) If a process unit only manufactures one product, then that
product shall represent the primary product of the process unit.
(2) If a process unit is designed and operated as a flexible
operation unit, the primary product shall be determined as specified in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this section based on the
anticipated operations for the 5 years following [insert date of
publication of final rule] for existing affected sources and for the
first 5 years after initial start-up for new affected sources.
(i) If the flexible operation unit will manufacture one product for
the greatest operating time over the five year period, then that
product shall represent the primary product of the flexible operation
unit.
(ii) If the flexible operation unit will manufacture multiple
products equally based on operating time, then the product with the
greatest production on a mass basis over the five year period shall
represent the primary product of the flexible operation unit.
(3) If the primary product of a process unit is a polyether polyol
product, then that process unit is considered a PMPU. That PMPU is
either an affected source or is part of an affected source comprised of
other PMPU at the same plant site that also make polyether polyols, if
the plant site is a major source. The status of a process unit as a
PMPU, and as an affected source or part of an affected source shall not
change regardless of which polyether polyol products are produced in
the future by the PMPU, with the exception noted in paragraph (e)(3)(i)
of this section.
(i) If a process unit terminates the production of all polyether
polyol products and does not anticipate the production of any polyether
polyol products in the future, the process unit is no longer a PMPU, is
no longer an affected source or part of an affected source, and is not
subject to the provisions of this subpart after notification is made as
specified in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section.
(ii) The owner or operator of a process unit that wishes to remove
the PMPU designation from the process unit, as specified in paragraph
(e)(3)(i) of this section, shall notify the Administrator. This
notification shall be accompanied by rationale for why it is
anticipated that no polyether polyol products will be produced in the
process unit in the future.
(iii) If a process unit meeting the criteria of paragraph (e)(3)(i)
of this section begins the production of a polyether polyol product in
the future, the owner or operator shall use the procedures in paragraph
(e)(4)(i) of this section to determine if the process unit is re-
designated as a PMPU.
(4) If the primary product of a process unit is not a polyether
polyol product, then that process unit is not an affected source, nor
is it part of any affected source subject to this subpart. The process
unit is not subject to this subpart at any time, regardless of what
product is being produced. The status of the process unit as not being
a PMPU, and therefore not being an affected source or part of an
affected source subject to this subpart, shall not change regardless of
what products are produced in the future by the PMPU, with the
exception noted in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section.
(i) If, at any time beginning [insert date 5 years from date of
publication of final rule], the owner or operator determines that a
polyether polyol product is the primary product for the process unit
based on actual production data for any preceding consecutive five-year
period, then the process unit shall be classified as a PMPU. If that
PMPU is not subject to another subpart of 40 CFR part 63, it is either
an affected source or part of an affected source and shall be subject
to this subpart. If the PMPU is subject to another subpart of 40 CFR
part 63, it is not an affected source for the purposes of this subpart.
(ii) If a process unit meets the criteria of paragraph (e)(4)(i) of
this section, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator
within 6 months of making this determination. The PMPU, as the entire
affected source or part of an affected source, shall be in compliance
with the provisions of this rule within 3 years from the date of such
notification.
(5) Once the primary product of a process unit has been determined
to be a polyether polyol product, the owner or operator of the affected
source shall comply with the provisions of this subpart, as specified
in either paragraph (e)(5)(i) or (e)(5)(ii) of this section, except as
specified in paragraph (e)(5)(iii) of this section.
(i) Each owner or operator shall determine the applicability of the
provisions for each emission point that is part of that flexible
operation unit based on emission point characteristics when a polyether
polyol is being manufactured. Based on this finding, the owner or
operator shall comply with the applicable standards of this subpart for
each emission point, as appropriate, at all times, regardless of what
product is being produced.
(ii) Alternatively, each owner or operator shall determine the
applicability of the provisions of this subpart to each emission point
that is part of the flexible operation unit based on the emission point
characteristics when each product produced by the flexible operation
unit is manufactured, regardless of whether the product is a polyether
polyol product or not. Based on these findings, the owner or operator
shall comply with the applicable requirements, as appropriate,
regardless of what product is being produced.
Note: Under this scenario, it is possible that the group status,
and therefore the requirement to achieve emission reductions, for an
emission point may change depending on the product being
manufactured.
(iii) Whenever a flexible operation unit manufactures a product
that meets the criteria of paragraph (b) of this section (i.e., does
not use or manufacture any organic HAP), the owner or operator shall
comply only with either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section to
demonstrate compliance
[[Page 46820]]
for activities associated with the manufacture of that product. This
subpart does not require compliance with the provisions of subpart A of
this part for activities associated with the manufacture of a product
that meets the criteria of paragraph (b) of this section.
(6) The determination of the primary product for a process unit, to
include the determination of applicability of this subpart to process
units that are designed and operated as flexible operation units, shall
be reported in the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.1439(e)(5) when the primary product is determined to be a
polyether polyol product. The Notification of Compliance Status shall
include the information specified in either paragraph (e)(6)(i) or
(e)(6)(ii) of this section. If the primary product is determined to be
something other than a polyether polyol product, the owner or operator
shall retain information, data, and analysis used to document the basis
for the determination that the primary product is not a polyether
polyol product.
(i) If the PMPU manufactures only polyether polyol products,
identification of that fact.
(ii) If the PMPU is designed and operated as a flexible operation
unit, the information specified in paragraphs (e)(6)(ii)(A) through
(e)(6)(ii)(C) of this section, as appropriate.
(A) Identification of polyether polyols as the primary product.
(B) Identification of the compliance option (either paragraph
(e)(5)(i) or (e)(5)(ii) of this section), that has been selected by the
owner or operator.
(7) To demonstrate compliance with the rule during those periods
when a flexible operation unit that is subject to this subpart is
producing a product that is not a polyether polyol, the owner or
operator shall comply with either paragraphs (e)(7)(i) and (e)(7)(ii)
or paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of this section.
(i) Establish parameter monitoring levels as specified in
Sec. 63.1438, for those applicable emission points designated as Group
1 (or emission points subject to these provisions); and
(ii) Submit the parameter monitoring levels developed under
paragraph (e)(7)(i) of this section and the basis for them in the
Notification of Compliance Status report, as specified in
Sec. 63.1439(e)(6); or
(iii) Demonstrate that the parameter monitoring levels established
are also appropriate for those periods when products other than
polyether polyols are being produced. Material demonstrating this
finding shall be submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status
report as specified in Sec. 63.1439(e)(5).
(f) Storage vessel ownership determination. The owner or operator
shall follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(f)(7) of this section to determine to which process unit a storage
vessel shall belong. Paragraph (f)(8) of this section specifies when an
owner or operator is required to redetermine to which process unit a
storage vessel belongs.
(1) If a storage vessel is already subject to another subpart of 40
CFR part 63 on [insert date of publication of final rule], that storage
vessel shall belong to the process unit subject to the other subpart
and none of the other provisions in this subpart shall apply to that
storage vessel.
(2) If a storage vessel is dedicated to a single process unit, the
storage vessel shall belong to that process unit.
(3) If a storage vessel is shared among process units, then the
storage vessel shall belong to that process unit located on the same
plant site as the storage vessel that has the greatest input into or
output from the storage vessel (i.e., the process unit that has the
predominant use of the storage vessel.)
(4) If predominant use cannot be determined for a storage vessel
that is shared among process units and if only one of those process
units is a PMPU subject to this subpart, the storage vessel shall
belong to that PMPU.
(5) If predominant use cannot be determined for a storage vessel
that is shared among process units and if more than one of the process
units are PMPUs that have different primary products and that are
subject to this subpart, then the owner or operator shall assign the
storage vessel to any one of the PMPUs sharing the storage vessel.
(6) If the predominant use of a storage vessel varies from year to
year, then predominant use shall be determined based on the utilization
that occurred during the year preceding [insert date of publication of
final rule] or based on the expected utilization for the 5 years
following [insert date of publication of final rule] for existing
affected sources, whichever is more representative of the expected
operations for that storage vessel, and based on the expected
utilization for the 5 years after initial start-up for new affected
sources. The determination of predominant use shall be reported in the
Notification of Compliance Status, as required by
Sec. 63.1439(e)(5)(vi).
(7) Where a storage vessel is located at a major source that
includes one or more process units which place material into, or
receive materials from the storage vessel, but the storage vessel is
located in a tank farm (including a marine tank farm), the
applicability of this subpart shall be determined according to the
provisions in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through (f)(7)(iv) of this section.
(i) The storage vessel may only be assigned to a process unit that
utilizes the storage vessel and does not have an intervening storage
vessel for that product (or raw materials, as appropriate). With
respect to any process unit, an intervening storage vessel means a
storage vessel connected by hard-piping to both the process unit and to
the storage vessel in the tank farm so that product or raw material
entering or leaving the process unit flows into (or from) the
intervening storage vessel and does not flow directly into (or from)
the storage vessel in the tank farm.
(ii) If there is no process unit at the major source that meets the
criteria of paragraph (f)(7)(i) of this section with respect to a
storage vessel, this subpart does not apply to the storage vessel.
(iii) If there is only one process unit at the major source that
meets the criteria of paragraph (f)(7)(i) of this section with respect
to a storage vessel, the storage vessel shall be assigned to that
process unit. Applicability of this subpart to the storage vessel shall
then be determined according to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section.
(iv) If there are two or more process units at the major source
that meet the criteria of paragraph (f)(7)(i) of this section with
respect to a storage vessel, the storage vessel shall be assigned to
one of those process units according to the provisions of paragraphs
(f)(3) through (f)(6) of this section. The predominant use shall be
determined among only those process units that meet the criteria of
paragraph (f)(7)(i) of this section.
(8) If there is a change in the utilization of the storage vessel
that could reasonably be expected to change the predominant use, the
owner or operator shall redetermine to which process unit the storage
vessel belongs by reperforming the procedures specified in paragraphs
(f)(2) through (f)(7) of this section, as appropriate.
(g) Changes or additions to plant sites. The provisions of
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this section apply to owners or
operators that change or add to their plant site or affected source.
Paragraph (g)(4) provides examples of what are and are not considered
process changes for purposes of paragraph (g) of this section.
(1) Adding a PMPU to a plant site. The provisions of paragraphs
(g)(1)(i)
[[Page 46821]]
and (g)(1)(ii) of this section apply to owners or operators that add
PMPUs to a plant site.
(i) If one or more PMPU is added to a plant site, the addition
shall be a new affected source and shall be subject to the requirements
for a new affected source in this subpart upon initial start-up or by
[insert date of publication of final rule], whichever is later, if the
addition meets the criteria specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A) and
(g)(1)(i)(B) and either (g)(1)(i)(C) or (g)(1)(i)(D) of this section:
(A) It is an addition that meets the definition of construction in
Sec. 63.2 of subpart A;
(B) Such construction commenced after September 4, 1997; and
(C) The addition has the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more
of any organic HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of
organic HAP, and a polyether polyol is the primary product of the
addition and polyether polyols are currently produced at the plant site
as the primary product of an affected source; or
(D) A polyether polyol is not currently produced at the plant site
as the primary product of an affected source, and the plant site meets,
or after the addition is constructed will meet, the definition of a
major source in Sec. 63.2 of subpart A.
(ii) If a PMPU is added to a plant site, the addition shall be
subject to the requirements for an existing affected source in this
subpart upon initial start-up or by 3 years after [insert date of
publication of final rule], whichever is later, if the addition does
not meet the criteria specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section
and the plant site meets, or after the addition is completed will meet,
the definition of major source.
(2) Adding emission points or making process changes to existing
affected sources. The provisions of paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii)
of this section apply to owners or operators that add emission points
or make process changes to an existing affected source.
(i) If any process change is made or emission point is added to an
existing affected source, the entire affected source shall be a new
affected source and shall be subject to the requirements for a new
affected source in this subpart upon initial start-up or by [insert
date of publication of final rule], whichever is later, if the process
change or addition meets the criteria specified in paragraphs
(g)(2)(i)(A) through (g)(2)(i)(B) of this section:
(A) It is a process change or addition that meets the definition of
reconstruction in Sec. 63.2 of subpart A; and
(B) Such reconstruction commenced after September 4, 1997.
(ii) If any process change is made or emission point is added to an
existing affected source, and the process change or addition does not
meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)(A) and (g)(2)(i)(B)
of this section, the resulting emission point(s) shall be subject to
the requirements for an existing affected source in this subpart. The
resulting emission point(s) shall be in compliance upon initial start-
up or by 3 years after [insert date of publication of final rule],
whichever is later.
(3) Existing affected source requirements for Group 2 emission
points that become Group 1 emission points. If a process change or
addition that does not meet the criteria in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or
(g)(2)(i) of this section is made to an existing plant site or existing
affected source, and the change causes a Group 2 emission point to
become a Group 1 emission point, for that emission point the owner or
operator shall comply with the requirements of this subpart for
existing Group 1 emission points. Compliance shall be achieved as
expeditiously as practical, but in no event later than 3 years after
the emission point becomes a Group 1 emission point.
(4) Determining what are and are not process changes. For purposes
of paragraph (g) of this section, examples of process changes include,
but are not limited to, additions in process equipment resulting in
changes in production capacity, production of a product outside the
scope of the compliance demonstration, or whenever there is a
replacement, removal, or addition of recovery equipment. For purposes
of paragraph (g) of this section, process changes do not include:
Process upsets, unintentional temporary process changes, and changes
that are within the equipment configuration and operating conditions
documented in the Notification of Compliance Status report required by
Sec. 63.1439(e)(5).
(h) Applicability of this subpart except during periods of start-
up, shutdown, malfunction, or non-operation. Paragraphs (h)(1) through
(h)(3) of this section shall be followed during periods of start-up,
shutdown, malfunction, and non-operation of the affected source or any
part thereof.
(1) The provisions set forth in this subpart and the provisions
referred to in this subpart shall apply at all times except during
periods of non-operation of the affected source (or specific portion
thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart
applies, or periods of start-up or shutdown, malfunction. However, if a
start-up, shutdown, malfunction, or period of non-operation of one
portion of an affected source does not affect the ability of a
particular emission point to comply with the specific provisions to
which it is subject, then that emission point shall still be required
to comply with the applicable provisions of this subpart during the
start-up, shutdown, malfunction, or period of non-operation. For
example, the degassing of a storage vessel would not affect the ability
of a process vent to meet the requirements of Secs. 63.1425 through
63.1430.
(2) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment
that are required or utilized for compliance with this subpart during
times when emissions (or, where applicable, wastewater streams or
residuals) are being routed to such items of equipment if the shutdown
would contravene requirements applicable to such items of equipment.
This paragraph does not apply if the item of equipment is
malfunctioning, or if the owner or operator must shut down the
equipment to avoid damage due to a contemporaneous start-up, shutdown,
or malfunction of the affected source or portion thereof.
(3) During start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when the
requirements of this subpart do not apply pursuant to paragraphs (h)(1)
through (h)(3) of this section, the owner or operator shall implement,
to the extent reasonably available, measures to prevent or minimize
excess emissions. For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``excess
emissions'' means emissions in excess of those that would have occurred
if there were no start-up, shutdown, or malfunction and the owner or
operator complied with the relevant provisions of this subpart. The
measures to be taken shall be identified in the applicable start-up,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, and may include, but are not limited
to, air pollution control technologies, recovery technologies, work
practices, pollution prevention, monitoring, and/or changes in the
manner of operation of the affected source. Back-up control techniques
are not required, but may be used if available.
Sec. 63.1421 Delegation of authority
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under section 112(l) of the Act, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator
and not transferred to a State.
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to the States: The
permission to use an alternative means of emission
[[Page 46822]]
limitation, from Sec. 63.6(g) of subpart A, and the authority of
Sec. 63.177 of subpart H.
Sec. 63.1422 Compliance schedule and relationship to existing
applicable rules.
(a) Affected sources are required to achieve compliance on or
before the dates specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section. Paragraph (e) of this section provides information on
requesting compliance extensions. Paragraphs (f) through (j) of this
section discuss the relationship of this subpart to subpart A and to
other applicable rules. Where an override of another authority of the
Act is indicated in this subpart, only compliance with the provisions
of this subpart is required. Paragraph (k) of this section specifies
the meaning of time periods.
(b) New affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 4, 1997 shall be in compliance with this
subpart upon initial start-up or by [insert date of publication of
final rule], whichever is later, as provided in Sec. 63.6(b) of subpart
A.
(c) Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with this
subpart (except for Sec. 63.1434 for which compliance is covered by
paragraph (d) of this section) no later than 3 years after [insert date
of publication of final rule], as provided in Sec. 63.6(c) of subpart
A, unless an extension has been granted as specified in paragraph (e)
of this section.
(d) Except as provided for in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of
this section, existing affected sources shall be in compliance with
Sec. 63.1434 no later than [date 6 months from date of publication of
final rule] unless an extension has been granted pursuant to section
112(i)(3)(B) of the Act, as discussed in Sec. 63.182(a)(6) of subpart
H.
(1) Compliance with the compressor provisions of Sec. 63.164 of
subpart H shall occur no later than [date 1 year from date of
publication of final rule] for any compressor meeting one or more of
the criteria in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iv) of this
section, if the work can be accomplished without a process unit
shutdown, as defined in Sec. 63.161 of subpart H.
(i) The seal system will be replaced;
(ii) A barrier fluid system will be installed; or
(iii) A new barrier fluid will be utilized which requires changes
to the existing barrier fluid system.
(iv) The compressor must be modified to permit connecting the
compressor to a closed vent system.
(2) Compliance with the compressor provisions of Sec. 63.164 of
subpart H shall occur no later than [date 18 months from date of
publication of final rule], for any compressor meeting all the criteria
in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(iv) of this section.
(i) The compressor meets one or more of the criteria specified in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iv) of this section;
(ii) The work can be accomplished without a process unit shutdown
as defined in Sec. 63.161 of subpart H;
(iii) The additional time is necessary, due to the unavailability
of parts beyond the control of the owner or operator; and
(iv) The owner or operator submits the request for a compliance
extension to the appropriate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Regional Office at the addresses listed in Sec. 63.13 of subpart A no
later than 45 days before [date 6 months from date of publication of
final rule]. The request for a compliance extension shall contain the
information specified in Sec. 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A), (B), and (D) of subpart
A. Unless the EPA Regional Office objects to the request for a
compliance extension within 30 days after receipt of the request, the
request shall be deemed approved.
(3) If compliance with the compressor provisions of Sec. 63.164 of
subpart H cannot reasonably be achieved without a process unit
shutdown, as defined in Sec. 63.161 of subpart H, the owner or operator
shall achieve compliance no later than [date 2 years after date of
publication of final rule]. The owner or operator who elects to use
this provision shall submit a request for an extension of compliance in
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this
section.
(4) Compliance with the compressor provisions of Sec. 63.164 of
subpart H shall occur not later than [date 3 years from date of
publication of final rule] for any compressor meeting one or more of
the criteria in paragraphs (d)(4)(i) through (d)(4)(iii) of this
section. The owner or operator who elects to use these provisions shall
submit a request for an extension of compliance in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section.
(i) Compliance cannot be achieved without replacing the compressor;
(ii) Compliance cannot be achieved without recasting the distance
piece; or
(iii) Design modifications are required to connect to a closed-vent
system.
(5) Compliance with the surge control vessel and bottoms receiver
provisions of Sec. 63.170 of subpart H shall occur no later than [date
3 years from date of publication of final rule].
(e) Pursuant to section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act, an owner or
operator may request an extension allowing the existing affected source
up to 1 additional year to comply with section 112(d) standards. For
purposes of this subpart, a request for an extension shall be submitted
to the permitting authority as part of the operating permit application
or to the Administrator as a separate submittal or as part of the
Precompliance Report. Requests for extensions shall be submitted no
later than 120 days prior to the compliance dates specified in
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, except as discussed in
paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The dates specified in Sec. 63.6(i)
of subpart A for submittal of requests for extensions shall not apply
to this subpart.
(1) A request for an extension of compliance shall include the data
described in Sec. 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A), (B), and (D) of subpart A.
(2) The requirements in Sec. 63.6(i)(8) through Sec. 63.6(i)(14) of
subpart A shall govern the review and approval of requests for
extensions of compliance with this subpart.
(3) An owner or operator may submit a compliance extension request
after the date specified in paragraph (e) of this section, provided
that the need for the compliance extension arose after that date, and
the need arose due to circumstances beyond reasonable control of the
owner or operator. This request shall include, in addition to the
information specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a statement
of the reasons additional time is needed and the date when the owner or
operator first learned of the problem.
(f) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
of this part that apply and those that do not apply to owners and
operators of affected sources subject to this subpart. For the purposes
of this subpart, Table 3 of subpart F of this part is not applicable.
(g) Table 2 of this subpart summarizes the provisions of subparts
F, G, and H of this part that apply and those that do not apply to
owners and operators of affected sources subject to this subpart.
(h)(1) After the compliance dates specified in this section, an
affected source subject to this subpart that is also subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart I, is required to comply only
with the provisions of this subpart.
(2) Sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart I that have elected
to comply through a quality improvement program, as specified in
Sec. 63.175 or Sec. 63.176 or both of subpart H, may elect to continue
these programs without interruption as a means of complying with this
subpart. In other words, becoming subject to this subpart does not
restart or reset the ``compliance
[[Page 46823]]
clock'' as it relates to reduced burden earned through a quality
improvement program.
(i) After the compliance dates specified in this section, a storage
vessel that belongs to an affected source subject to this subpart that
is also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb is
required to comply only with the provisions of this subpart. After the
compliance dates specified in this section, that storage vessel shall
no longer be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.
(j) Overlap with other regulations for monitoring, recordkeeping or
reporting with respect to combustion devices, recovery devices, or
recapture devices. After the compliance dates specified in this
subpart, if any combustion device, recovery device or recapture device
subject to this subpart is also subject to monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 264 subpart AA or CC, the
owner or operator may comply with either paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of
this section. If, after the compliance dates specified in this subpart,
any combustion device, recovery device, or recapture device subject to
this subpart is subject to monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in
40 CFR part 265 subpart AA or CC, the owner or operator may comply with
either paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(3) of this section. If the owner or
operator elects to comply with either paragraph (j)(2) or (j)(3) of
this section, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator of
this choice in the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.1439(e)(5).
(1) The owner or operator shall comply with the monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this subpart.
(2) The owner or operator shall comply with the monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 264, with the
following exception. All excursions, as defined in Sec. 63.1438(f) of
this subpart, shall be reported in the periodic report. Compliance with
this paragraph shall constitute compliance with the monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this subpart.
(3) The owner or operator shall comply with the monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR part 265 subpart AA or CC and the
periodic reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 264 subpart AA or CC
that would apply to the device if the facility had final-permitted
status, with the following exception. All excursions, as defined in
Sec. 63.1438(f) of this subpart, shall be reported in the periodic
report. Compliance with this paragraph shall constitute compliance with
the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this
subpart.
(k)(1) Notwithstanding time periods specified in this subpart for
completion of required tasks, such time periods may be changed by
mutual agreement between the owner or operator and the Administrator,
as specified in subpart A of this part (e.g., a period could begin on
the compliance date or another date, rather than on the first day of
the standard calendar period). For each time period that is changed by
agreement, the revised period shall remain in effect until it is
changed. A new request is not necessary for each recurring period.
(2) Where the period specified for compliance is a standard
calendar period, if the initial compliance date occurs after the
beginning of the period, compliance shall be required according to the
schedule specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) or (k)(2)(ii) of this
section, as appropriate.
(i) Compliance shall be required before the end of the standard
calendar period within which the compliance deadline occurs, if there
remain at least 2 weeks for tasks that must be performed monthly, at
least 1 month for tasks that must be performed each quarter, or at
least 3 months for tasks that must be performed annually; or
(ii) In all other cases, compliance shall be required before the
end of the first full standard calendar period after the period within
which the initial compliance deadline occurs.
(3) In all instances where a provision of this subpart requires
completion of a task during each of multiple successive periods, an
owner or operator may perform the required task at any time during the
specified period, provided that the task is conducted at a reasonable
interval after completion of the task during the previous period.
Sec. 63.1423 Definitions.
(a) The following terms used in this subpart shall have the meaning
given them in subparts A (Sec. 63.2), F (Sec. 63.101), G (Sec. 63.111),
and H (Sec. 63.161) as specified after each term:
Act (subpart A)
Administrator (subpart A)
Automated monitoring and recording system (subpart G)
Boiler (subpart G)
Bottoms receiver (subpart H)
By-product (subpart F)
Car-seal (subpart G)
Closed-vent system (subpart G)
Combustion device (subpart G)
Commenced (subpart A)
Compliance date (subpart A)
Compliance schedule (subpart A)
Construction (subpart A)
Continuous monitoring system (subpart A)
Emission standard (subpart A)
EPA (subpart A)
Equipment (subpart H)
Equipment leak (subpart H)
Flow indicator (subpart G)
Fuel gas (subpart F)
Fuel gas system (subpart F)
Hard-piping (subpart G)
Heat exchange system (subpart F)
Impurity (subpart F)
Incinerator (subpart G)
In organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) service (subpart H)
Major source (subpart A)
Malfunction (subpart A)
New source (subpart A)
Open-ended valve or line (subpart H)
Operating permit (subpart F)
Organic monitoring device (subpart G)
Owner or operator (subpart A)
Performance evaluation (subpart A)
Performance test (subpart A)
Permitting authority (subpart A)
Plant site (subpart F)
Potential to emit (subpart A)
Primary fuel (subpart G)
Process heater (subpart G)
Process unit shutdown (subpart H)
Process wastewater (subpart F)
Process wastewater stream (subpart G)
Reactor (subpart G)
Recapture device (subpart G)
Reconstruction (subpart A)
Relief valve (subpart G)
Research and development facility (subpart F)
Run (subpart A)
Secondary fuel (subpart G)
Sensor (subpart H)
Specific gravity monitoring device (subpart G)
Start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan (subpart F)
State (subpart A)
Surge control vessel (subpart H)
Temperature monitoring device (subpart G)
Test method (subpart A)
Total resource effectiveness index value (subpart G)
Treatment process (subpart G)
Visible emission (subpart A)
(b) All other terms used in this subpart shall have the meaning
given them in this section. If a term is defined in a subpart
referenced above and in this section, it shall have the meaning given
in this section for purposes of this subpart.
Affected source is defined in Sec. 63.1420(a).
Annual average concentration, as used in conjunction with the
wastewater provisions, means the flow-weighted annual average
concentration and is determined by the procedures in Sec. 63.144(b) of
subpart G.
Annual average flow rate, as used in conjunction with the
wastewater provisions, is determined by the procedures in
Sec. 63.144(c).
Batch cycle means the step or steps, from start to finish, that
occur in a batch unit operation.
[[Page 46824]]
Batch unit operation means a unit operation involving intermittent
or discontinuous feed into equipment, and, in general, involves the
emptying of equipment after the batch cycle ceases and prior to
beginning a new batch cycle. Mass, temperature, concentration and other
properties of the process may vary with time. Addition of raw material
and withdrawal of product do not simultaneously occur in a batch unit
operations.
Catalyst extraction means the removal of the catalyst using either
solvent or physical extraction method.
Combination of process vents that are Group 1 means a group of
process vents that has a total resource effectiveness index value,
calculated according to Sec. 63.115 of subpart G, less than or equal to
1.0 for process vents from continuous unit operations. For process
vents from batch unit operations, the combination of process vents that
are Group 1 means a group of process vents that has a cutoff flow
greater than the annual average flow, calculated according to
Sec. 63.488(b) of subpart U.
Combination of process vents that are Group 2 means a group of
process vents that has a total resource effectiveness index value,
calculated according to Sec. 63.115 of subpart G, greater than 1.0 for
process vents from continuous unit operations. For process vents from
batch unit operations, the combination of process vents that are Group
2 streams means a group of process vents that has a cutoff flow less
than the annual average flow, calculated according to Sec. 63.488(b) of
subpart U.
Continuous record means documentation, either in hard copy or
computer readable form, of data values measured at least once during
approximately equal intervals of 15 minutes and recorded at the
frequency specified in Sec. 63.1439(d).
Continuous recorder is defined in Sec. 63.111, except that when the
definition in Sec. 63.111 reads ``or records 15-minute or more frequent
block average values,'' the phrase ``or records 1-hour or more frequent
block average values'' shall apply for purposes of this subpart.
Continuous unit operation means a unit operation where the inputs
and outputs flow continuously. Continuous unit operations typically
approach steady-state conditions. Continuous unit operations typically
involve the simultaneous addition of raw material and withdrawal of the
product.
Control technique means any equipment or process control used for
capturing, recovering, or oxidizing organic hazardous air pollutant
vapors. Such equipment includes, but is not limited to, absorbers,
adsorbers, boilers, condensers, flares, incinerators, process heaters,
and scrubbers, or any combination thereof. Process control includes
extended cookout (as defined in this section). Condensers operating as
reflux condensers that are necessary for processing, such as liquid
level control, temperature control, or distillation operation, shall be
considered inherently part of the process and will not be considered
control techniques.
Day means calendar day for the purposes of this subpart.
Emission point means an individual process vent, storage vessel,
wastewater stream, or equipment leak.
Epoxide means a chemical compound consisting of a three-membered
cyclic ether. Only emissions of epoxides listed in Table 4 (ethylene
oxide and propylene oxide) are regulated by the provisions of this
subpart.
Existing affected source is defined in Sec. 63.1420(a)(3).
Extended Cookout means a control technique that reduces the amount
of unreacted EO and/or PO (epoxides) in the reactor. This is
accomplished by allowing the product to react for a longer time period,
thereby having less unreacted epoxides and reducing epoxides emissions
that may have otherwise been emitted.
Flexible operation unit means a process unit that manufactures
different chemical products in addition to polyether polyols
periodically by alternating raw materials or operating conditions.
These units are also referred to as campaign plants or blocked
operations.
Group 1 storage vessel means a storage vessel that meets the
applicability criteria specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
Group 2 storage vessel means a storage vessel that does not fall
within the definition of a Group 1 storage vessel.
Group 1 wastewater stream means a process wastewater stream at an
existing or new affected source that meets the criteria for Group 1
status in Sec. 63.132(c) of subpart G, with the exceptions listed in
Sec. 63.1433(a)(10) for the purposes of this subpart (i.e., for organic
HAP listed on Table 5 of this subpart only).
Group 2 wastewater stream means any process wastewater stream as
defined in Sec. 63.101 of subpart F at an existing affected source that
does not meet the definition (in this section) of a Group 1 wastewater
stream.
Initial start-up means the first time a new or reconstructed
affected source begins production, or, for equipment added or changed
as described in Sec. 63.1420(g), the first time the equipment is put
into operation. Initial start-up does not include operation solely for
testing equipment. Initial start-up does not include subsequent start-
ups of an affected source or portion thereof following malfunctions or
shutdowns or following changes in product for flexible operation units.
Further, for purposes of Sec. 63.1422, initial start-up does not
include subsequent start-ups of affected sources or portions thereof
following malfunctions or process unit shutdowns.
Maintenance wastewater is defined in Sec. 63.101 of subpart F,
except that the term ``polyether polyol manufacturing process unit''
shall apply whenever the term ``chemical manufacturing process unit''
is used. Further, the generation of wastewater from the routine rinsing
or washing of equipment between batch cycles is not maintenance
wastewater, for the purposes of this subpart.
Make or modify the product means to produce the polyether polyol
with epoxides or other cyclic ethers with compounds having one or more
reactive hydrogens, and to add any preservatives/antioxidants in order
to maintain the quality of the finished product before shipping. Making
and modifying the product for this regulation does not include
grafting, polymerizing the polyol, or modifying it with compounds other
than EO or PO.
Maximum true vapor pressure is defined in Sec. 63.111 of subpart G,
except that the terms ``transfer'' and ``transferred'' shall not apply
for the purposes of this subpart.
Month means either a calendar month or a repeating 30-day period.
New affected source is defined in Sec. 63.1420(a)(4).
On-site or on site means, with respect to records required to be
maintained by this subpart or required by another subpart referenced by
this subpart, a location within the plant site where the affected
source is located. On-site storage of records includes, but is not
limited to, a location at the affected source or PMPU to which the
records pertain or a location elsewhere at the plant site where the
affected source is located.
Operating day refers to the 24-hour period defined by the owner or
operator in the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.1439(e)(5). That 24-hour period may be from midnight to
midnight or another 24-hour period. The operating day is the 24-hour
period for which daily average monitoring values are determined.
Organic hazardous air pollutant(s) (organic HAP) means one or more
of the
[[Page 46825]]
chemicals listed in Table 4 of this subpart, or any other chemical
which:
(1) Is knowingly introduced into the manufacturing process other
than as an impurity, or has been or will be reported under any Federal
or State program, such as EPCRA section 311, 312, or 313 or Title V;
and
(2) Is listed in Table 2 of subpart F of this part.
Polyether polyol means a compound formed through the polymerization
of ethylene oxide (EO) or propylene oxide (PO) or other cyclic ethers
with compounds having one or more reactive hydrogens (i.e., a hydrogen
atom bonded to nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur, etc.) to form
polyethers. This definition excludes materials regulated under the HON,
such as glycols and glycol ethers.
Polyether polyol manufacturing process unit (PMPU) means a
collection of equipment assembled and connected by process pipes or
ducts, used to process raw materials and to manufacture a polyether
polyol product as its primary product. A polyether polyol process unit
consists of more than one unit operation. This collection of equipment
includes reactors and their associated product separators and recovery
devices, distillation units and their associated distillate receivers
and recovery devices, other associated unit operations, storage
vessels, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, product transfer
racks, connected ducts and piping, combustion, recovery, or recapture
devices or systems, and the equipment (i.e., all pumps, compressors,
agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-
ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems
that are associated with the polyether polyol product process unit)
that are subject to the equipment leak provisions as specified in
Sec. 63.1434.
Primary product is defined in and determined by the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.1420(e).
Process means a logical grouping of processing equipment which
collectively function to produce a polyether polyols. A process may
consist of one or more unit operations. For the purpose of this
subpart, process includes all or a combination of reaction, recovery,
separation, purification, or other activity, operation, manufacture, or
treatment which are used to produce a polyether polyol.
Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to
recover material as an integral part of a unit operation. The condenser
must support a vapor-to-liquid phase change for periods of source
equipment operation that are above the boiling or bubble point of
substance(s). Examples of process condensers include distillation
condensers, reflux condensers, process condensers in line prior to the
vacuum source, and process condensers used in stripping or flashing
operations.
Process unit means a collection of equipment assembled and
connected by pipes or ducts to process raw materials and to manufacture
a product.
Process vent means a point of emission from a unit operation having
a gaseous emission stream. Unit operations that may have process vents
are condensers, distillation units, reactors, or other unit operations
within the
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.