National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins
Federal RegisterDec 14, 1998
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-6173-3]
RIN 2060-AE36
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;
Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed rule would reduce air emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from existing and new sources that manufacture amino
or phenolic resins. The proposed rule would implement section 112 of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Act) and is based on the
Administrator's determination that amino/phenolic resin sources emit
HAP identified on the EPA's list of 188 HAP.
The resins covered by the proposed rule use formaldehyde as a
primary feedstock. The major HAP emitted by sources covered by the
proposed rule include formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, xylene, and
toluene. Beginning with the first year after sources are required to
comply with the proposed rule, the EPA concludes that the proposed rule
is estimated to reduce HAP emissions from existing sources by 356
megagrams per year (Mg/yr) from a baseline level of 644 Mg/yr. This is
a 55 percent reduction.
The published list of source categories included the amino resins
production source category and the phenolic resins production source
category. These two products can broadly be classified as formaldehyde-
based thermosetting resins. These two source categories are being
combined into one source category (i.e., the amino/phenolic resins
production source category) and are treated as a single source category
for the purposes of this rulemaking.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before February 12,
1999. For information on submitting electronic comments see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Public Hearing: A public hearing will be held, if requested, to
provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed standards for the
manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins. If anyone contacts the EPA
requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 11, 1999, a public
hearing will be held on January 28, 1999 beginning at 9:30 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102)
Attention: Docket No. A-92-19, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a
separate copy also be sent to John Schaefer, USEPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone (919) 541-0296, fax (919) 541-3470 and e-mail:
[email protected]
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by following
the instructions listed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. No confidential
business information (CBI) should be submitted through e-mail.
Public Hearing: Persons interested in attending the hearing should
notify Ms. Maria Noell at (919) 541-5607, Organic Chemicals Group (MD-
13) to verify that a hearing will occur. The public hearing, if
required, will be held at the EPA's Office of Administration
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Request to Speak at Hearing: Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact the EPA by January 11, 1999 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.
Basis and Purpose Document: The basis and purpose document (BPD)
may be obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Library (MD-35),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-2777. Please
refer to ``National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Category: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins--Background
Information for Proposed Standards'' for the BPD. This document may
also be obtained electronically from the EPA's Technology Transfer
Network (TNN) (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for access information.)
Docket: A docket, No. A-92-19, containing information considered by
the EPA in the development of the proposed standards for the
Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins, is available for public
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday
(except for Federal holidays) at the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460,
telephone: (202) 260-7548. The docket is located at the above address
in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). The proposed
regulations, BPD, and other supporting information are available for
inspection and copying. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed standard, contact Mr. John Schaefer, US EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone (919) 541-0296.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities: Regulated categories and
entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins...... Amino/phenolic resins
facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the 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. 63.1400 of the 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.
Electronic comments and data can be sent directly to EPA at: A-and-
R-D[email protected]. Electronic comments 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 diskette in
Wordperfect 5.1 file format or 6.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number A-92-19. Electronic comments may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
This document, the proposed regulatory texts, and BPD are available
in docket number A-92-19 or by request from the EPA's Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center. (see ADDRESSES) Electronic copies of
this document may also be obtained from the EPA Technology Transfer
Network (TTN) via the internet at the following address: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The EPA TTN is a free service, except for the
normal long distance charges that apply.
[[Page 68833]]
The following outline is provided to aid in reading the preamble to
the proposed NESHAP for the Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins. The
information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. List of Source Categories
A. Single Source Category
B. Change of Source Category Name
C. Industry Profile
II. Background
A. Pollutants
B. Development of the Standard
III. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
IV. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Source Categories to be Regulated, Definition of Affected
Source, and Definition of Amino/Phenolic Resin
B. Relationship to Other Rules
C. Pollutants to be Regulated
D. Affected Emission Points
E. Format of the Standards
F. Summary of the Proposed Standards
G. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
H. Monitoring Requirements
I. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
V. Rationale for Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Hazardous Air Pollutants for Control
B. Selection of Emission Points
C. Determination of the Proposed Standards
D. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Rule
E. Selection of Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
F. Selection of Parameter Monitoring Provisions
G. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
VI. Solicitation of Comments
VII. Summary Of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP
B. Primary Air Impacts
C. Non-air Environmental Impacts
D. Energy Impacts
E. Cost Impacts
F. Economic Impacts
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 12866 Review
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Unfunded Mandates
F. Executive Order 12875
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
H. Executive Order 13045
I. Executive Order 13084
Please note that in the rule which follows this preamble,
Secs. 63.1410, 63.1411, 63.1412, and 63.1416 are all reserved sections.
This action was taken in order to maintain clarity and continuity in
the rule if new sections need to be added to the rule at a later date.
I. List of Source Categories
A. Single Source Category
Section 112 of the Act requires that the EPA evaluate and control
emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is achieved through promulgation
of emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f) of the Act and
work practice and equipment standards under section 112(h) of the Act
for categories of sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, the EPA
published an initial list of major and area source categories to be
regulated, (57 FR 31576), as required under section 112(c) of the Act.
The amino resins production and phenolic resins production source
categories were recorded separately on this initial list.
The EPA believes that it is technically feasible to regulate
emissions from amino and phenolic resin manufacturing facilities by a
single set of emission standards. As described in detail in Chapter 3
of the Basis and Purpose Document, the amino resins manufacturing
process and the phenolic resins manufacturing process are very similar.
At many facilities, the same process equipment is used to produce both
amino and phenolic resins. For such facilities, complying with two
different sets of standards would be difficult, if not impossible. In
addition, the emission points for facilities manufacturing amino and
phenolic resins are the same (reactor and non-reactor process vents,
storage vessels, wastewater, and equipment leaks) and the resulting
emission characteristics are very similar. Lastly, amino and phenolic
manufacturing facilities use the same types of control devices to
control HAP emissions from corresponding emission points; that is,
there are no significant differences in the types of control
technologies applicable to controlling emissions from amino and
phenolic resins manufacturing processes. Another consideration in
treating amino and phenolic resin facilities under a single set of
standards is the cost involved in developing the standards and in
complying with the standards. For the EPA, it is more efficient and
less costly to develop a single standard than to develop separate
standards for multiple source categories that have similar emission
characteristics and applicable control technologies. A single set of
standards will ensure that process equipment with comparable HAP
emissions and control technologies are subject to consistent emission
control requirements. In addition, compliance and enforcement
activities will be more efficient and less costly.
In summary, the information obtained during the information
gathering phase of the project demonstrated that the manufacturing
processes, emission characteristics, and applicable control
technologies for facilities in these two source categories are similar.
Based on these factors, the EPA concluded that these two source
categories are to be treated as a single source category for the
purposes of this rulemaking. For purposes of this preamble and the
proposed rule, the term amino/phenolic resin, and similar terms, will
be used to indicate that the two source categories of amino resins and
phenolic resins have been treated as a single source category for
purposes of developing this rule.
B. Change of Source Category Name
Under today's action the EPA is proposing to revise the source
category list published under section 112(c) of the Act to combine the
Amino Resins Production and the Phenolic Resins Production source
categories into a new category called ``Amino/Phenolic Resins
Production.''
C. Industry Profile
Production methods used in the manufacture of amino/phenolic resins
include both batch and continuous operations, although batch operations
make up a majority of the process. The sizes of the major facilities
range from 140 Mg/yr to 149,000 Mg/yr. Air emissions of HAP originate
from breathing and withdrawal losses from storage vessels, venting of
process vessels, leaks from piping and equipment used to transfer HAP
(equipment leaks), and volatization of HAP from wastewater streams. HAP
emitted from the amino/phenolic production processes include a range of
compounds. Among the most prevalent are formaldehyde, methanol, and
phenol. Detailed information describing the manufacturing processes and
associated emissions can be found in the Basis and Purpose Document.
Over 56 companies at 99 facilities produce amino/phenolic products.
An estimated 40 facilities are considered to be major sources according
to the CAA criterion of having the potential to emit 10 tons per year
of any HAP or 25 tons per year of combined HAP, based on 1992 emissions
data. The proposed rule would apply to all major sources that
manufacture amino/phenolic resins. Area sources would not be subject to
the proposed rule.
[[Page 68834]]
II. Background
A. Pollutants
The 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'' [section
101(b)(1) of the Act]. The proposed rule protects air quality and
promotes the public health by reducing emissions of some of the HAP
listed in section 112(b)(1) of the Act.
The HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) of the Act emitted by the
amino/phenolic resin facilities covered by this proposed rule include
formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, xylene, and toluene. Exposure to these
compounds has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects. The
adverse health effects associated with the exposure to these specific
HAP are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. In general,
these findings have only been shown with concentrations higher than
those in the ambient air.
Formaldehyde, one of the HAP associated with this source category,
has been classified as a probable human carcinogen of medium
carcinogenic hazard based on sufficient animal and limited human
evidence. In addition, short-term and long-term exposure to significant
levels of formaldehyde may cause irritation of the eye, nose, throat,
and, at higher levels, the respiratory tract in humans. Long-term
exposures of animals have also resulted in damage to respiratory tract
tissues. Although little information is available on developmental
effects to humans, animal tests do not indicate effects on fetal
development.
Short-term inhalation of large amounts of methanol by humans may
cause headache, gastric disturbances, and visual disturbances leading
to blindness. Effects on vision, gastrointestinal system and the
nervous system have been reported in humans following significant long-
term exposures. While no information is available on the reproductive
or developmental effects of methanol in humans, birth defects have been
observed in the offspring of rats exposed by inhalation to very high
levels of methanol during pregnancy. Although no information is
available on the carcinogenic effects of methanol in humans or animals,
several tests of methanol's ability to damage genetic material have
been negative. Because of a lack of information for humans and
inadequate animal evidence, EPA does not consider methanol to be
classifiable as a human carcinogen.
Short-term inhalation of high levels of phenol in air by humans may
cause irritation of lungs, muscle tremors, loss of coordination,
paralysis, and with several weeks of high exposure, severe heart,
kidney, liver and lung damage. Chronic inhalation exposure to phenol in
humans has been associated with liver injury, and muscle pain and
weakness. Effects on fetal development have been observed in animals
ingesting phenol during pregnancy. Studies in mice have reported that
phenol applied to the skin causes skin cancer and, its application
coincident with certain cancer-causing chemicals, increases their
carcinogenic potency. Because of a lack of information for humans and
inadequate animal evidence, EPA does not consider phenol to be
classifiable as a human carcinogen.
Short-term inhalation of high levels of mixed xylenes in humans may
cause irritation of the nose and throat, nausea, vomiting, gastric
irritation, mild transient eye irritation, and neurological effects.
Long-term inhalation of high levels of xylenes in humans may result in
nervous system effects such as headaches, dizziness, fatigue, tremors,
and incoordination. Other reported effects noted include labored
breathing, heart palpitation, severe chest pain, abnormal heart
functioning, and possible effects on the blood and kidneys.
Developmental effects have been reported from xylene exposure via
inhalation in animals. Because of a lack of information for humans and
inadequate animal evidence, EPA does not consider xylenes to be
classifiable as a human carcinogen.
Short-term inhalation of relatively high concentrations of toluene
by humans may cause nervous system effects such as fatigue, sleepiness,
headaches, and nausea, as well as, irregular heartbeat. Repeated
exposure to high concentrations may cause additional nervous system
effects, including incoordination, tremors, decreased brain size,
involuntary eye movements, and may impair speech, hearing, and vision.
Long-term exposure of 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 whose mothers were
exposed to high levels of toluene before birth may suffer nervous
system dysfunction, attention deficits, and minor face and limb
defects. Inhalation of toluene by pregnant women may also increase the
risk of spontaneous abortion. Because of a lack of information for
humans and inadequate animal evidence, EPA does not consider toluene to
be classifiable as a human carcinogen.
The EPA does not have the type of current detailed data on each of
the amino/phenolic resin facilities covered by the proposed rule, and
the people living around the facilities, that would be necessary to
conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the
organic HAP emitted from these facilities and potential for resultant
health effects. Therefore, the EPA does not know the extent to which
the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations
surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse
effects do occur, the promulgated standard will substantially reduce
emissions and exposures to the level achievable with maximum achievable
control technology.
B. Development of the Standard
The alternatives considered in the development of the proposed
rule, including those alternatives selected as standards for new and
existing sources, are based on process and emissions data received from
the existing facilities known by the EPA to be in operation.
Regulatory alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor were
selected when they were judged to be achievable ``taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any
non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements'' [Section 112(d)(2) of the Act].
The proposed rule gives existing facilities 3 years from the
effective date of the final rule to comply. This is the maximum amount
allowed by Section 112(i)(3)(A) of the Act. Based on the number of
existing facilities affected by the proposed rule, the EPA believes
that required retrofits or other actions can be achieved in the
timeframe allotted. New facilities will be required to comply with the
rule upon start-up. The EPA sees no reason why new facilities would not
be able to comply with the requirements of the rule upon start-up.
Included in the proposed rule are methods for determining initial
compliance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that
affected sources will comply with the standards both initially and over
time. However, the EPA has made every effort to simplify the
requirements in the rule.
The proposed rule is modeled after the Hazardous Organic NESHAP
(HON) (40 CFR part 63, subparts F, G, and H) and the Polymers & Resins
IV NESHAP. Because the proposed rule relies on the Polymers & Resins IV
NESHAP for some regulatory language and the Polymers &
[[Page 68835]]
Resins IV NESHAP is currently under litigation with changes to the
regulatory text expected to be part of the litigation outcome,
corresponding changes may be made to this proposal at the appropriate
time. In some instances, the proposed rule refers to the HON. In doing
so, the proposed rule has benefited from the extensive public debate
and participation experienced in the HON rulemaking. The EPA has also
attempted to maintain consistency with existing regulations by either
incorporating text from existing or forthcoming regulations or
referencing the applicable sections, depending on which method would be
least confusing for a given situation.
Representatives from other interested EPA offices and programs,
including Regional offices, as well as state environmental agency
personnel, participated in the regulatory development. These
representatives were involved in the regulatory development process,
and were given opportunities to review and comment on the proposed rule
before proposal and promulgation. Therefore, the EPA believes that the
implication to other EPA offices and programs and to state agencies has
been adequately considered during the development of the proposed rule.
In addition, the EPA has met with some members of industry concerning
the proposed rule. Finally, industry, regulatory authorities, and
environmental groups will have the opportunity to comment on the
proposed rule and provide additional information during the public
comment period following proposal.
The proposed rule will result in an organic HAP emission reduction
of 356 Mg/yr for existing facilities. No emission reductions have been
estimated for new facilities because the EPA does not anticipate that
any new facilities will be built over the next 5 years. The emission
reductions achieved by these standards will help to 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.''
III. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
Section 112 of the Act gives the EPA the authority to establish
national standards to reduce air emissions from sources that emit one
or more HAP. Section 112(b) contains a list of HAP to be regulated by
NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the EPA to use this pollutant list to
develop and publish a list of source categories for which NESHAP will
be developed. The EPA must list all known source categories and
subcategories of ``major sources'' (defined below) that emit one or
more of the listed HAP. A major source is defined in section 112(a) as
any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a
contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit in the aggregate, considering controls, 10 tons/yr or
more of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP.
This list of source categories was published in the Federal Register on
July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and includes amino and phenolic resins.
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both
new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out
in section 112(d) of the Act. The statute requires the standards to
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is
achievable for new or existing sources. This control level is referred
to as MACT. Consideration of control levels more stringent than the
MACT floor (described below) must reflect consideration of the cost of
achieving the emission reduction, any non-air quality, health, and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
The MACT floor is the least stringent level allowed for MACT
standards. For new sources, the standards for a source category or
subcategory ``shall not be less stringent than the emission control
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as
determined by the Administrator'' [section 112(d)(3) of the Act].
Existing source standards shall be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the
existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more
sources or the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30
sources [section 112(d)(3) of the Act]. These two minimum levels of
control define the MACT floor for new and existing sources.
Two interpretations have been evaluated by the EPA for representing
the MACT floor for existing sources. One interpretation is that the
MACT floor is represented by the worst performing source of the best
performing 12 percent of the sources. The second interpretation is that
the MACT floor is represented by the ``average emission limitation
achieved'' by the best performing sources, where the ``average'' is
based on a measure of central tendency, such as the arithmetic mean,
median, or mode. This latter interpretation is referred to as the
``higher floor interpretation.'' In a June 6, 1994 Federal Register
notice (59 FR 29196), the EPA presented its interpretation of the
statutory language concerning the MACT floor for existing sources.
Based on a review of the statute, legislative history, and public
comments, the EPA believes that the ``higher floor interpretation'' is
a better reading of the statutory language. The determination of the
MACT floor for existing sources under the proposed rule followed the
``higher floor interpretation.''
IV. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Source Categories to be Regulated, Definition of Affected Source,
and Definition of Amino/Phenolic Resin
The published list of source categories included the amino resins
production source category and the phenolic resins production source
category. These two products can broadly be classified as formaldehyde-
based thermosetting resins. These two source categories are being
combined into one source category and are treated as a single source
category for the purposes of this rulemaking. The proposed rule would
regulate organic HAP emissions from facilities in the amino/phenolic
resin source category, provided that a facility is determined to be a
major source. The proposed rule would regulate existing and new
affected sources. For this proposed rule, an affected source is defined
as each group of one or more amino/phenolic resin process units (APPU)
that is located at a plant site that is a major source. An APPU is
defined as follows:
Amino/Phenolic Resin Process Unit (APPU) means a collection of
equipment assembled and connected by hard-piping or ductwork used to
process raw materials and to manufacture an amino/phenolic resin as
its primary product. This collection of equipment includes process
vents from process vessels; equipment identified in Sec. 63.149;
storage vessels, as determined in Sec. 63.1400(g); and the equipment
that is subject to the equipment leak provisions as specified in
Sec. 63.1415. Utilities, lines and equipment not containing process
fluids, and other non-process lines, such as heating and cooling
systems which do not combine their materials with those in the
processes they serve, are not part of the amino/phenolic resin
process unit. An amino/phenolic resin process unit consists of more
than one unit operation.
In addition to the emission points and/or equipment included in the
definition
[[Page 68836]]
of APPU, the affected source includes waste management units,
maintenance wastewater, heat exchange systems, and equipment used to
comply with the proposed rule, including control devices and recovery
devices.
As described earlier in this preamble, the source categories of
amino resins and phenolic resins have been combined into a single
source category. To reflect this administrative action in the proposed
rule, there are three definitions: amino/phenolic resin, amino resin,
and phenolic resin. These definitions are presented below:
Amino/Phenolic Resin means one or both of the following types of
resins:
(1) Amino resin, or
(2) Phenolic resin.
Amino resin means a resin produced through the reaction of
formaldehyde, or a formaldehyde containing solution (e.g., aqueous
formaldehyde), with compound(s) that contain the amino group; these
compounds include melamine, urea, and urea derivatives.
Phenolic resin means a resin that is a condensation product of
formaldehyde and phenol, or a formaldehyde substitute and/or a
phenol substitute. Substitutes for formaldehyde include acetaldehyde
or furfuraldehyde. Substitutes for phenol include other phenolic
starting compounds such as cresol, xylenols, p-tert-butylphenol, p-
phenylphenol, and nonylphenol.
B. Relationship to Other Rules
Affected sources subject to the proposed rule may also be subject
to other existing rules. The relationship between this rule and three
other rules is discussed below. See proposed Sec. 63.1401(g)-(i).
Affected 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). For storage vessels subject to and
complying with the NSPS, the proposed rule requires that such storage
vessels remain in compliance with the NSPS because the NSPS level of
control (i.e., 95%) is more stringent than the control level for the
proposed rule (i.e., 50%). For storage vessels subject to the NSPS but
that did not have to apply controls (e.g., the storage vessels stores
an organic liquid but the vapor pressure of the stored material is
below the applicability criteria), the proposed rule states that after
the compliance date for the proposed rule, such storage vessels are
only required to comply with the proposed rule and are no longer
subject to subpart Kb.
Affected 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. Subpart Q prohibits the use of certain
chemicals in the cooling tower water, and the proposed rule implements
a leak detection and repair program for organic HAP. Therefore,
affected sources subject to both rules must comply with both rules.
Affected sources subject to the proposed rule may also be subject
to the Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI LDAR) (40 CFR
part 60, subpart VV) and/or the National Emission Standards for Organic
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks (HON NESHAP LDAR)(40 CFR
part 63, subpart H). After the compliance date for the proposed rule,
such affected sources are only required to comply with the proposed
rule and are no longer subject to CFR part 60 subpart VV or to CFR part
63 subpart H. The proposed rule directly references the HON provisions
contained in subpart H, and therefore is equivalent to the HON. The HON
is more stringent than the subpart VV.
Another likely instance of interaction between the proposed rule
and other rules is related to storage vessels already covered by the
HON; this is likely to occur at amino/phenolic resin facilities that
are collocated with formaldehyde plants subject to the HON. In such
cases, a methanol storage vessel supplying methanol to the amino/
phenolic resin facility is likely to be subject to the HON. The storage
vessel assignment procedures in the proposed rule address such
situations. If a storage vessel is already subject to another part 63
standard, that storage vessel is considered to be assigned to the
process unit subject to the part 63 standard and is not subject to the
proposed rule.
C. Pollutants To Be Regulated
Facilities in the amino/phenolic source category emit a variety of
organic HAP. Among the most significant emissions of organic HAP are
the following: formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, xylene, and toluene. The
proposed rule would regulate emissions of these compounds, as well as a
variety of other organic HAP that are emitted.
D. Affected Emission Points
Emissions from the following emission points are being covered by
the proposed rule: storage vessels, continuous process vents, batch
process vents, heat exchange systems, wastewater, and equipment leaks.
E. Format of the Standards
The Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) (subparts F, G, H, and I of 40
CFR part 63) is relied on heavily and provides the basis for selection
of the proposed formats for the majority of emission points. For those
emission points relying on the HON (i.e., storage vessels, continuous
process vents, heat exchange systems, wastewater, and equipment leaks),
the format of the proposed standards is the same as that found in the
HON. The following paragraphs summarize the selected formats.
For storage vessels, the format of the proposed standards is
dependent on the method selected to comply with the standards. If tank
improvements (e.g., internal or external floating roofs with proper
seals and fittings) are selected, the format is a combination of
design, equipment, work practice, and operational standards. If a
closed vent system and control device are selected, the format is a
combination of design and equipment standards, and a percent reduction
or outlet concentration. As an alternate standard, the proposed rule
allows emissions from storage vessels to be vented to a control device
continuously achieving an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv of organic
HAP. In this case the format is an outlet concentration.
For continuous process vents, the format of the proposed standards
is also dependent on the method selected to comply with the standards.
If a control device other than a flare is used, the formats are a
percent reduction or an outlet concentration. If a flare is selected,
the format is a combination of equipment and operating specifications.
Like storage vessels, the proposed rule allows compliance by venting
emissions to a control device continuously achieving an outlet
concentration of 20 ppmv of organic HAP.
For batch process vents the format depends on the type of batch
process vent. For reactor batch process vents, a percent reduction and
an emission limit were selected. The standard requires that emissions
are reduced by a certain percent (i.e., 93 percent at existing affected
sources and 95 percent at new affected sources) over the batch cycle.
As an alternative, the standard allows a demonstration that emissions
are limited to 0.017 kg of HAP per megagram of product at existing
affected sources or 0.01 kg of HAP per megagram of product at new
affected sources. For non-reactor batch process vents, the standard
requires that emissions for the collection of non-reactor batch process
vents within the affected source are
[[Page 68837]]
reduced by 68 percent at existing affected sources and by 83 percent at
new affected sources. Like continuous process vents, if a flare is
selected, the format is a combination of equipment and operating
specifications. Like storage vessels and continuous process vents, the
proposed rule allows compliance by venting emissions to a control
device continuously achieving an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv of
organic HAP.
For heat exchange systems, a work practice standard is proposed.
This standard requires a leak detection and repair program to detect
and repair leaks of organic HAP into cooling tower water.
For wastewater streams requiring control, the proposed standards
incorporate several formats: equipment, operational, work practice, and
emission standards. The particular format selected depends on which
portion of the wastewater stream is involved. For transport and
handling equipment, the selected format is a combination of equipment
standards and work practices. For the reduction of organic HAP from the
wastewater stream itself, several alternative formats are included,
including alternative numerical emission limit formats 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.
For equipment leaks, the proposed standards incorporate several
formats: equipment, design, base performance levels (e.g., maximum
allowable percent leaking valves), work practices, and operational
practices. Different formats are necessary for different types of
equipment because of the nature of the equipment, available control
techniques, and applicability of the measurement method.
F. Summary of the Proposed Standards
Detailed information describing the approach used to determine MACT
floors and the consideration of regulatory alternatives is presented in
Section V of this preamble.
The proposed standards for new and existing affected sources are
summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. The sections below
present the proposed standards by emission point and present the
alternative 20 ppmv of organic HAP emission limit.
1. Storage Vessels
The proposed standard for storage vessels at existing affected
sources is 50 percent emission reduction for storage vessels meeting
the following applicability criteria:
Aqueous formaldehyde: 10,000 gallons capacity with vapor
pressure 0.47 psia
Non-aqueous formaldehyde: 10,160 gallons capacity with vapor
pressure 2.45 psia; and 90,000 gallons capacity
with vapor pressure 0.45 psia.
For storage vessels at new affected sources, the applicability criteria
are the same but the control levels are different. For aqueous
formaldehyde storage vessels, the control level is 50 percent, and for
non-aqueous formaldehyde storage vessels, the control level is 95
percent.
2. Continuous Process Vents
The proposed standard for continuous process vents at new affected
sources utilizes the MACT floor level of control and the HON process
vent provisions to establish a two-tiered standard. For continuous
process vents with total resource effectiveness values (TRE) greater
than 1.0 but less than or equal to 1.2, 85 percent emission reduction
is required (i.e., MACT floor). For continuous process vents with a TRE
value of 1.0 or less, 98 percent emission reduction is required (i.e.,
HON). For process vents with a TRE value greater than 1.2, controls are
not required. TRE values are determined using the TRE equations from
the HON for a thermal incinerator with 70 percent heat recovery. As an
alternative to the percent reduction, an owner or operator may
demonstrate that the selected controls reduce the outlet concentration
to 20 ppmv.
The proposed rule does not contain any requirements for the control
of continuous process vents at existing affected sources.
Table 1.--Proposed Standards for New Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability
Emission point criteria Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage Vessels............. For aqueous 50 percent control
formaldehyde OR alternative
vessels; vessels standard of venting
with capacities of to a control device
10,000 gallons or continuously
greater with vapor achieving a 20 ppmv
pressures of 0.47 outlet
psia or greater. concentration OR 95
For non-aqueous percent control OR
formaldehyde alternative
vessels; vessels standard of venting
with capacities of to a control device
10,160 gallons or continuously
greater with vapor achieving a 20 ppmv
pressures of 2.45 outlet
psia or greater and concentration.
vessels with
capacities of
90,000 gallons and
greater with vapor
pressures of 0.45
psia and greater.
Continuous Process Vents.... HON TRE value 85 percent control
calculations; two for vents with TRE
levels of control. greater than 1.0
but less than or
equal to 1.2 and 98
percent control for
vents with TRE
equal to or less
than 10.0 OR
alternative
standard of venting
to a control device
continously
achieving a 20 ppmv
outlet
concentration.
Reactor Batch Process Vents. No applicability 95 percent control
criteria, all over the batch
reactor batch cycle; or 0.01
process vents are kilogram of HAP per
subject to control. megagram of
product; OR
alternative
standard of venting
to a control device
continuously
achieving a 20 ppmv
outlet
concentration.
Non-Reactor Batch Process Facility-wide 83 percent control
Vents. emissions from the for the collection
collection of non- of non-reactor
reactor batch batch process vents
process vents within the affected
greater than or source; OR
equal to 0.23 Mg. alternative
standard of venting
to a control device
continuously
achieving a 20 ppmv
outlet
concentration.
Heat Exchange Systems....... No applicability Monitor for leaks.
criteria.
Wastewater.................. HON applicability HON control level.
criteria.
[[Page 68838]]
Equipment Leaks............. HON applicability HON leak detection
criteria a. and repair program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The HON has an exemption for equipment components in organic HAP
service less than 300 hours per year.
Table 2.--Proposed Standards for Existing Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability
Emission point criteria Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage Vessels............. For aqueous 50 percent control
formaldehyde OR alternative
vessels; vessels standard of venting
with capacities of to a control device
10,000 gallons or continuously
greater with vapor achieving a 20 ppmv
pressures of 0.47 outlet
psia or greater. concentration.
For non-aqueous
formaldehyde
vessels; vessels
with capacities of
10,160 gallons or
greater with vapor
pressures of 2.45
psia or greater and
tanks with
capacities of
90,000 gallons and
greater with vapor
pressures of 0.45
psia and greater.
Continuous Process Vents.... Not applicable...... No standard
selected.
Reactor Batch Process Vents. No applicability 93 percent control
criteria, all over the batch
reactor batch cycle; OR 0.017
process vents are kilogram of HAP per
subject to control. megagram of
product; OR
alternative
standard of venting
to a control device
continuously
achieving a 20 ppmv
outlet
concentration.
Non-Reactor Batch Process Facility-wide 68 percent control
Vents. emissions from non- for all non-reactor
reactor batch batch process vents
process vents within the affected
greater than or source; OR
equal to 0.23 Mg. alternative
standard of venting
to a control device
continuously
achieving a 20 ppmv
outlet
concentration.
Heat Exchange Systems....... No applicability Monitor for leaks.
criteria.
Wastewater.................. Not applicable...... No standard
selected.
Equipment Leaks............. HON applicability HON leak detection
criteria a. and repair program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The HON has an exemption for equipment components in organic HAP
service less than 300 hours per year.
3. Batch Process Vents
Batch process vents are distinguished as reactor batch process
vents or non-reactor batch process vents under the proposed standards,
and are discussed separately in this section.
Reactor Batch Process Vents. The proposed standards for reactor
batch process vents at new affected sources are 95 percent emission
reduction with an alternative emission limit of 0.01 kilogram of HAP
per megagram of product. The proposed standards for reactor batch
process vents at existing affected sources are 93 percent emission
reduction with an alternative emission limit of 0.017 kilogram of HAP
per megagram of product. Because there are no applicability criteria
for reactor batch process vents, all vents require control.
Non-Reactor Batch Process Vents. The proposed standard for non-
reactor batch process vents at new affected sources is an overall
emissions reduction of 83 percent from all non-reactor batch process
vents within the affected source for affected sources with emissions
from non-reactor batch process vents greater than or equal to 0.25 tpy.
The proposed standard for existing affected sources is an overall
emissions reduction of 68 percent for the collection of non-reactor
batch process vents within the affected source for affected sources
with emissions from the collection of non-reactor batch process vents
greater than or equal to 0.23 Mg.
4. Heat Exchange Systems
A monitoring program to detect leaks from the process into the
cooling water is the proposed standard for heat exchange systems at
both new and existing affected sources. This monitoring program is the
same as the HON program (40 CFR part 63, subpart F).
5. Wastewater Streams
The proposed standard for wastewater streams at new affected
sources is the HON. No standard is being proposed for existing affected
sources.
6. Equipment Leaks
The proposed standard for equipment leaks at new and existing
affected sources is based on the HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart H).
Aspects of the proposed standards that are not found in the HON are:
(1) The option to group valves, (2) longer monitoring frequencies for
facilities that demonstrate lower leak frequencies for valves and
connectors, (3) delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been
detected is also allowed if the owner or operator determines that
repair personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger if attempting
to repair without a process shutdown, (4) closed-vent systems designed
to operate at a pressure below atmospheric pressure may be used to
comply, and (5) an actual annual production cutoff of 800 megagrams per
year (i.e., affected sources that maintain actual annual production of
amino/phenolic resins is equal to or less than 800 megagrams per year
are exempt from the equipment leaks provisions).
7. Alternative Standard
As an alternative to the standards presented above for storage
vessels, continuous process vents, reactor batch process vents, and
non-reactor batch process vents, an owner or operator may choose to
meet an alternative emission limit. Under the alternative emission
limit, vent streams requiring control may be vented to a control device
continuously achieving an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv of organic
HAP. This alternative emission limit differs from the 20 ppmv
alternatives that accompany the percent reduction requirements for
storage vessels and continuous process vents in that a performance test
specific to an
[[Page 68839]]
individual emission point is not required. Instead, an initial
demonstration that the control device continuously achieves an outlet
concentration of 20 ppmv of organic HAP is required. Continuous
compliance is demonstrated through continuous monitoring of the control
device outlet concentration.
G. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
Compliance and performance test provisions, to include group
determination procedures, contained in the proposed rule are based on
the HON, but there are several important exceptions. First, test
methods are different because of the specific HAP emitted by amino/
phenolic resin facilities. Second, the specific provisions for batch
process vents are based on the provisions from the promulgated Group IV
Polymers and Resins NESHAP (40 CFR part 63 Subpart JJJ).
Because of the specific HAP emitted by amino/phenolic resin
facilities, the test methods specified in the HON are not completely
adequate for the proposed rule. Specifically, formaldehyde is not
adequately detected using either Method 18 or Method 25A of appendix A,
40 CFR part 60. Therefore, the following test methods have been added
specifically for formaldehyde: Methods 316 and 320. Method 316 is a
manual method that was proposed with the Mineral Wool NESHAP (62 FR
25370) and Method 320 is an FTIR-based method that was proposed with
the Portland Cement NESHAP (63 FR 14181). Further, Method 18 does not
always adequately detect methanol, and Method 308 has been included as
an option for testing for methanol.
Under the proposed rule, owners or operators of control devices
receiving 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) or less of uncontrolled HAP emissions are
not required to conduct a performance test and instead may perform a
design evaluation to demonstrate compliance with the proposed rule.
Each type of emission point is discussed briefly in the paragraphs
below.
1. Storage Vessels
The proposed standards for storage vessels refer directly to the
HON storage vessel provisions. The group status of storage vessels is
determined based on the storage vessel capacity and vapor pressure of
the stored material. The proposed rule includes a table specifying
storage vessels that are Group 1 and therefore require control. There
is no requirement for an emissions test or engineering assessment to
determine the group status of a storage vessel.
Compliance demonstration provisions include periodic visual
inspections of vessels, roof seals, and fittings, as well as internal
inspections.
2. Continuous Process Vents
The proposed standards for continuous process vents refer directly
to the HON process vent provisions. Under the referenced provisions, an
owner or operator is required to either calculate a TRE index value to
determine whether each continuous process vent is a Group 1 or Group 2
vent, or the owner or operator can elect to comply with the continuous
process vent control requirements without calculating the TRE index.
The TRE index value is determined after the last recovery device in the
process or prior to venting to the atmosphere. The TRE calculation
involves an emissions test or engineering assessment and use of the TRE
equations in the proposed rule.
Performance test provisions are included for Group 1 continuous
process vents to verify that the control device achieves the required
performance.
3. Batch Process Vents
There are no group determination procedures for reactor batch
process vents because all reactor batch process vents are subject to
control under the proposed rule. For non-reactor batch process vents,
control is required for affected sources with 0.25 tons per year or
more of uncontrolled emissions from the collection of non-reactor batch
process vents within the affected source. Procedures for determining
uncontrolled emissions from non-reactor batch process vents are
included in the proposed rule. For those affected sources required to
control non-reactor batch process vents, an owner or operator can
choose to not control some non-reactor batch process vents, as long as
emissions from the collection of non-reactor batch process vents are
reduced by the specified percentage. Performance test provisions are
included to verify the efficiency achieved by the control device.
Compliance is demonstrated by showing that for the batch cycle, if
an individual reactor batch process vent is being controlled, or on an
overall basis, if non-reactor batch process vents are being controlled,
the specified percent reduction is achieved. To demonstrate this, an
emissions profile must be developed that identifies each batch emission
episode included in the batch process vent and characterizes emissions
from each batch emission episode on a mass emitted per unit time basis.
Using this emissions profile, the owner or operator must show that the
periods of under-control and over-control of emissions balance and the
batch cycle percent reduction or the overall percent reduction is
achieved. The proposed rule contains procedures for estimating
emissions from individual batch emission episodes, estimating control
device efficiency, and for demonstrating that the required percent
reduction is achieved.
Procedures for demonstrating compliance with the alternative
kilogram of HAP per megagram of product emission limit are also
included in the proposed rule.
4. Heat Exchange Systems
There are no performance test requirements for heat exchange
systems. Compliance is demonstrated through the monitoring of cooling
water to detect leaks in heat exchange systems. If a leak is detected,
the heat exchange system must be repaired.
5. Wastewater
The proposed standards for wastewater refer directly to the HON
wastewater provisions. For demonstrating compliance with the various
requirements (i.e., group determinations, demonstrations of control
device performance, or demonstrations of treatment processes), the
proposed rule allows the owners or operators to either conduct
performance tests or to document compliance using engineering
calculations.
6. Equipment Leaks
The proposed standards for equipment leaks refer directly to the
HON equipment leak provisions. The proposed rule retains the use of
Method 21 to detect leaks. Method 21 requires a portable organic vapor
analyzer to monitor for leaks from equipment in use. A ``leak'' is a
concentration specified in the regulation for the type of equipment
being monitored and is based on the instrument response to methane (the
calibration gas) in air. The observed screening value may require
adjustment for response factor relative to methane if the weighted
response factor of the stream exceeds a specified multiplier. The
proposed rule requires the use of Method 18 to determine the organic
content of a process stream.
H. Monitoring Requirements
The proposed rule requires monitoring of HAP emissions and control
and recovery device operating parameters. HAP emissions are
[[Page 68840]]
monitored directly as part of complying with the kilogram of HAP
emissions per megagram of product limits for reactor batch process
vents or as part of the 20 ppmv alternative standard. Control device
operating parameters are monitored as part of complying with the
percent reduction requirements of the proposed rule.
Continuous parameter monitoring is required for control devices.
Exceptions to this are that control devices controlling less than 1 ton
per year of uncontrolled emissions are exempt from continuous
monitoring but the owner or operator must conduct a daily or per batch
demonstration that the control device is operating properly. Second,
owners or operators of control devices serving storage vessels are not
required to conduct parameter monitoring unless the owner or operator
specifies continuous monitoring in the monitoring plan required by the
referenced HON provisions. However, if a control device is used, the
owners or operator must identify the appropriate monitoring procedures
to be followed for compliance demonstration purposes. Further, if a
control device serves both a storage vessel(s) and another emission
point subject to the proposed rule, the control device is subject to
continuous parameter monitoring if the other emission point is subject
to continuous parameter monitoring.
Parameters must be monitored when emissions are vented to the
control device. The proposed rule directly references the HON
monitoring requirements for continuous process vents, storage vessels,
and wastewater. However, there are general monitoring requirements
specified in the proposed rule (e.g., establishment of parameter
monitoring levels) that apply to all emission points.
The proposed rule identifies parameters to be monitored for most
control devices expected to be used for emission points regulated by
the proposed rule. Parameter monitoring levels are established based on
design evaluation for control devices with uncontrolled emissions less
than 10 tons per year. For all other control devices required to
conduct continuous parameter monitoring, parameter monitoring levels
are established based on a performance test, but can be supplemented by
manufacturer's recommendations and/or an engineering assessment. If an
owner or operator chooses to supplement results of the performance test
using manufacturer's recommendations and/or engineering assessment, the
established parameter monitoring level is subject to review and
approval by the Administrator.
Parameter monitoring averages are determined based on all recorded
values, except for values recorded under certain conditions, for
example under conditions of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction.
Parameter averages must be daily averages for control devices serving
continuous process vents, waste management units, storage vessels (if
required), or equipment leaks. Parameter averages may be either batch
cycle daily averages or block averages for batch process vents.
Parameter averages based on batch cycle daily averages cover a 24-hour
period, based on the defined operating day, and may or may not cover
multiple batch cycles for the batch process vent. A batch cycle daily
average may also cover partial batch cycles, therefore the proposed
rule requires that the information required to calculate parameter
monitoring compliance for partial batch cycles be provided. Parameter
averages based on block averages cover the complete batch cycle,
regardless of the length of time for the batch cycle.
There are two types of violations under the proposed rule;
violations of the operating limit and violations of the emission limit.
Violations of the operating limit occur when not enough operating
parameter monitoring data are available to constitute a valid day's
worth of data or when the average is above the maximum or below the
minimum established value. The proposed rule requires that 75 percent
of the possible data points are recorded and are valid during a day.
Violations of the emission limit occur when a control device fails to
meet the 20 ppmv alternative standard allowed for continuous process
vents, batch process vents, and storage vessels, or when a control
device fails to meet the kilogram of HAP per megagram of product
emission limits for batch process vents. There is one situation where
an exceedance of an operating parameter is considered a violation of
the emission limit. When the exit gas temperature monitoring data for a
condenser shows an exceedance, it is considered a violation of the
emission limit.
Provisions for alternate monitoring parameters are included in the
proposed rule. An owner or operator must apply for approval to monitor
an alternate parameter.
I. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The general recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this
subpart are very similar to those found in the HON. The proposed rule
also relies on the provisions of subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. A table
included in the proposed rule designates which sections of subpart A
apply to the proposed rule. Specific recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for each type of emission point are also included in the
proposed rule. The proposed rule references the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for continuous process vents, storage vessels,
wastewater, and equipment leaks.
The proposed rule requires sources to keep records and submit
reports of information necessary to document compliance. Records must
be kept for 5 years. The following reports must be submitted to the
Administrator as appropriate: (1) Precompliance Report, (2)
Notification of Compliance Status, (3) Periodic Reports, and (4) Other
Reports. The requirements for each of the four reports are summarized
below. In addition, sources complying with the equipment leak
requirements contained in subpart H must follow the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of subpart H.
1. Precompliance Report
The Precompliance Report would be due no later than 12 months prior
to the compliance date. The Precompliance Report includes the
following, as appropriate: compliance extension requests; requests to
monitor alternative parameters; intent to use alternative controls;
intent to use the alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping
allowed by the rule; demonstration that the emissions estimation
equations for batch process vents are not appropriate; and information
related to establishing parameter monitoring levels, if required.
2. Notification of Compliance Status
The Notification of Compliance Status would be due 150 days after
the affected source's compliance date. It includes the information
necessary to demonstrate that compliance has been achieved for emission
points required to apply controls by the proposed rule. Such
information includes, but is not limited to, the results of any
performance tests; one complete test report for each test method used
for a particular kind of emission point; TRE determinations for
continuous process vents; design analyses for storage vessels and
wastewater emission points and for certain batch process vents; and
monitored parameter levels for each emission point and supporting data
for the designated level.
3. Periodic Reports
Generally, Periodic Reports would be submitted semiannually.
However, there is an exception. The Administrator may
[[Page 68841]]
request that the owner or operator submit quarterly reports for certain
emission points that the Administrator identifies. After 1 year,
semiannual reporting can be resumed, unless the Administrator requests
continuation of quarterly reports.
Periodic Reports would include information required to be reported
under the recordkeeping and reporting provisions for each emission
point. For continuously monitored parameters, the data on those periods
when the parameters are above the maximum or below the minimum
established levels are included in the reports. Periodic Reports would
also include results of any performance tests conducted during the
reporting period and instances when required inspections revealed
problems.
4. Other Reports
Other reports required under the proposed rule include: the
notification of inspections required for storage vessels; reports of
changes to the primary product for an APPU or process unit; reports of
addition of one or more APPUs, addition of one or more emission points,
or change in the group status of emission points.
V. Rationale for Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Hazardous Air Pollutants for Control
Of the 188 compounds listed, only a limited number are emitted from
amino/phenolic resin facilities. Because the EPA judged that it was
unnecessary to require facilities to test for all 188 HAP, a list of
the specific HAP to be regulated in the proposed rule was developed.
However, all 188 listed HAP must be considered in any major source
determination under the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63.
To select which HAP are to be regulated under the proposed NESHAP,
the EPA evaluated the emissions data provided by the industry in the
1992 Information Collection Request. Based on this evaluation, the EPA
is proposing that the following specific HAP be regulated under the
proposed NESHAP: formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, xylenes (isomers and
mixtures), toluene, o-Cresol, m-Cresol, p-Cresol, ethylene glycol,
styrene, methyl ethyl ketone, ethyl benzene, naphthalene, cresol/
cresylic acid (isomers and mixtures), glycol ethers, diethanolamine,
aniline, methyl isobutyl ketone, acrylamide, biphenyl, and dimethyl
formamide.
B. Selection of Emission Points
Emissions from the production of amino/phenolic resins were
identified as occurring from storage vessels, continuous process vents,
batch process vents, heat exchange systems, wastewater, and equipment
leaks. Batch process vents are distinguished as being reactor batch
process vents or non-reactor batch process vents. The EPA is proposing
standards for all of these types of emission points in the proposed
rule.
Non-reactor batch process vents include, but are not limited to,
filter presses, batch drying operations, weigh tanks, holding tanks,
distillation systems, and flaking belt operations. Many facilities did
not report the presence of non-reactor batch process vents, but the EPA
judged that all facilities had some number of these types of batch
process vents. Because of the discrepancy within the gathered data, the
EPA judged that including non-reactor batch process vents with reactor
batch process vents in the development of the MACT floor could result
in a level of control for non-reactor batch process vents that was not
representative of the controls present at existing sources. A primary
factor in making this judgment was the fact that only three of the best
performing 5 facilities, in terms of reactor batch process vent
control, reported non-reactor batch process vents.
In addition, because heat exchange systems have been identified as
a potential source of emissions, the EPA judges that proposing a
standard to cover this emission point is warranted. However, the EPA is
not aware if any heat exchange systems exist in the amino/phenolic
resin industry and would like to solicit comments from interested
persons on this subject. The request for comment on heat exchange
systems is discussed in Section VI of this preamble.
C. Determination of the Proposed Standards
The sections below present the rationale for determining MACT
floors by emission point, regulatory alternatives beyond the MACT
floor, alternative standards (Section C.7) and action taken to address
predicted adverse economic impacts to small businesses (Section C.8).
Heat exchange systems are not discussed in this section because no MACT
floor determination was made. A more detailed explanation of the
development of the proposed standards is set forth in the Basis and
Purpose Document (BPD), which supplements this preamble and is
available from the docket.
1. Storage Vessels
The MACT floor for existing sources for categories with 30 or more
sources is based on ``the average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the
Administrator has emission information).'' (CAA section 112(d)(3))
Here, the ``source'' is the amino/phenolic resin facility. Because EPA
has emissions information for 40 amino/phenolic resins facilities that
are major sources, the best performing 12 percent of existing sources
is represented by the best performing 5 facilities. The best performing
5 facilities were selected based on the same approach as used in
developing the MACT floor for storage vessels under the HON.
Applicability criteria and control levels for the MACT floor were also
developed using the HON approach.
For existing sources, the HON approach determines whether or not
there is control at the MACT floor by considering the overall control
status of each facility independently, judging each facility as
controlled or uncontrolled based on a predominance of controlled or
uncontrolled storage vessels. For example, if 8 out of 10 storage
vessels are controlled at a given facility, the overall control status
of that facility is ``controlled.'' Next, the HON approach looks at a
predominance of the best performing 5 facilities. For example, if at
least 3 out of the 5 facilities are considered ``controlled,'' a MACT
floor of control is considered to exist. Table 3 presents a summary of
the number of uncontrolled and controlled storage vessels at each of
the best performing 5 facilities and presents the HON approach finding
that the existing source MACT floor is ``controlled.''
Table 3.--Storage Vessels at the Best Performing 5 Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Emissions
Vapor Size device ---------------------
No. tanks Company Location Chemical pressure (gal) Control efficiency Uncont. Cont. Mg/
(psia) percent Mg/yr yr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 tks............................... Borden................. Fayetteville, NC....... aqueous formaldehyde... 0.47 55,000 Scrubber.............. 50 912 456
15 tks.............................. Borden................. Fayetteville, NC....... aqueous formaldehyde... 0.47 16,000 Scrubber.............. 50 812 406
[[Page 68842]]
2 tks............................... Borden................. Fayetteville, NC....... phenol................. 10,000 gallons capacity with vapor
pressure 0.47 psia
Non-aqueous formaldehyde: 10,160 gallons capacity with vapor
pressure 2.45 psia; and 90,000 gallons capacity
with vapor pressure 0.45 psia.
Two sets of criteria were developed because the storage vessels in the
best performing 5 facility data set naturally lend themselves to
division based on the material stored (i.e., aqueous formaldehyde or
other materials), and because the HON approach requires that storage
vessels that are not controlled at the baseline be excluded by the
applicability criteria.
The MACT floor is established based on the control levels at the
baseline. Of the best performing 5 facilities, there are a total of 36
controlled storage vessels of which 6 are controlled to 95 percent, 1
is controlled to 85 percent, and 29 are controlled to 50 percent. The
median and mode, which is 50 percent, was chosen to represent the MACT
floor control level.
The MACT floor for new sources is set by the best controlled
source. Using the HON approach for new sources, the best controlled
source (here, the best controlled amino/phenolic resin facility) is
identified based on the absolute number of storage vessels controlled.
The Borden, Fayetteville facility is the best controlled source
based on absolute number of storage vessels controlled. However, the
only controlled storage vessels are aqueous formaldehyde storage
vessels and this leaves storage of other raw materials (i.e., non-
aqueous formaldehyde) unaddressed. The Cytec, Wallingford facility is
the next best controlled facility based on the absolute number of
storage vessels controlled and includes other raw materials among the
controlled vessels. The Borden, Fayetteville facility is the best
controlled facility for aqueous formaldehyde storage vessels, and the
Cytec, Wallingford facility is the best controlled facility for non-
aqueous formaldehyde storage vessels. Therefore, separate floors were
set for aqueous formaldehyde and non-aqueous formaldehyde storage
vessels.
Like the process for existing sources, vapor pressure and capacity
cutoffs were developed that include those storage vessels that are
controlled at baseline and exclude storage vessels that are
uncontrolled at baseline. The storage vessels at the Borden,
Fayetteville facility were used to develop the aqueous formaldehyde
criteria, and the storage vessels at the Cytec, Wallingford facility
were used to develop the non-aqueous formaldehyde criteria. The
following storage vessel applicability criteria were developed:
Aqueous formaldehyde: 10,000 gallons capacity with vapor
pressure 0.47 psia.
Non-aqueous formaldehyde 10,160 gallons capacity with vapor
pressure 2.45 psia; and 90,000 gallons capacity
with vapor pressure 0.45 psia.
The applicability criteria for existing and new sources are
coincidentally the same because of the large number of storage vessels
at the Borden, Fayetteville facility.
The control level for the new source MACT floor is established
based on the control levels at the best controlled facility. For
aqueous formaldehyde storage vessels, the best controlled facility is
the Borden, Fayetteville facility. For non-aqueous formaldehyde storage
vessels, the best controlled facility is the Cytec, Wallingford
facility.
The aqueous formaldehyde storage vessels at the Borden,
Fayetteville facility are all controlled to 50 percent. Therefore, the
MACT floor for aqueous
[[Page 68843]]
formaldehyde storage vessels is 50 percent. At the Cytec, Wallingford
facility some non-aqueous formaldehyde storage vessels are controlled
and some are not controlled. The applicability criteria presented above
separate the controlled tanks from the uncontrolled tanks. All of the
controlled tanks are controlled to 95 percent. Therefore, the MACT
floor for non-aqueous formaldehyde storage vessels is 95 percent.
2. Continuous Process Vents
The available data indicate that only three facilities had
continuous process vents and only one of the three facilities had
applied controls. The only continuous process vents identified by the
available data were dryer vents.
The MACT floor for existing sources is set by the average
performance achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing
sources. Here, the amino/phenolic resin facility is the ``source.''
Because there are 40 amino/phenolic resin facilities in the source
category for which EPA has emissions information, the best performing
12 percent of existing affected sources is represented by the best
performing 5 facilities. Because only one facility was identified as
controlling its continuous process vents, the MACT floor for existing
sources is no control.
The MACT floor for new sources is set by the best controlled
source. The best controlled amino/phenolic resin facility has a
scrubber with an 85 percent control efficiency. Therefore, the MACT
floor level of control is 85 percent for continuous process vents that
meet the applicability criterion. The applicability criterion chosen to
represent the specific continuous process vents that are controlled at
the MACT floor is the HON total resource effectiveness (TRE) equation
for a thermal incinerator with 70 percent heat recovery. This
applicability criterion was selected because the HON process vent
provisions were relied upon for part of the standard and using the same
applicability criterion to define the MACT floor provides a consistent
approach for the rule.
The expression of applicability criteria is limited to the TRE
equation for a thermal incinerator with 70 percent heat recovery
because there was only one set of vent stream data, which did not allow
the EPA to evaluate a range of stream conditions that were controlled
versus those that were not controlled. This TRE value of 1.2 was
calculated using the vent stream data for the continuous process vents
setting the 85 percent MACT floor.
3. Batch Process Vents
As indicated in Section IV, batch process vents were distinguished
as reactor batch process vents or non-reactor batch process vents for
the purposes of the proposed rule. Reactor and non-reactor batch
process vents are discussed separately in this section.
Reactor Batch Process Vents
The MACT floor for existing sources is set by the average
performance achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing
sources. Here, the ``source'' is the amino/phenolic resin facility.
Because there are 40 amino/phenolic resin facilities in the source
category for which EPA has emissions information, the best performing
12 percent of existing sources is represented by the best performing 5
facilities. Each of the best performing 5 facilities had applied
secondary controls to each of their reactor batch process vents; this
fact necessitates that the proposed rule require control of all reactor
batch process vents with no applicability criteria. Table 4 presents
the data for the best performing 5 facilities in terms of reactor batch
process vent controls.
Table 4.--Best performing Facilities for Reactor Batch Process Vents based on Applied Secondary Controls a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production of Collocated with Emission factor (lb
Facility Type of resin methylated resins (N formaldehyde plant (Y/ Secondary controls HAP/1000 lb
or percent) N) production)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranbar............................ P N N thermal incinerator 0.84
(95 percent).
Georgia Pacific, Taylorsville, MS. A/P N Y catalytic incinerator 0.01
(95 percent).
Georgia Pacific, Port Wentworth, A/P 5-10% N caustic treatment (93 0.017
GA. percent).
Borden, Louisville, Ky............ P N Y scrubber (90 percent) CBI b
Solutia, Addyston, OH............. A 100% N scrubber (85 percent) CBI b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The data on this table is restricted to the 17 facilities that were contacted during the recent data gathering effort.
b CBI means Confidential Business Information.
The data set used for determining the MACT floor was limited to the
17 facilities for which the 1992 ICR responses indicated that secondary
controls had been applied to reactor batch process vents. These
facilities were contacted via telephone during 1997 and were asked a
series of questions in order to clarify the data that were reported in
the 1992 ICR responses. Some of the topics that were covered during the
teleconferences included the presence and purpose of a primary
condenser, emissions before and after the primary condenser, efficiency
of the primary condenser and secondary control devices, whether the
facility was collocated with a formaldehyde plant, and whether the
facility produced methylated resins.
In considering the best performing 5 facilities based on applied
secondary controls, the data were evaluated to determine if the
collocation with formaldehyde plants or the production of methylated
resins influenced the application of secondary controls, specifically
the use of combustion devices. No patterns emerged. One combustion
device is at a phenolic producer (Ranbar) that does not produce any
methylated resins and is not collocated with a formaldehyde plant. The
other combustion device is at an amino/phenolic producer (Georgia
Pacific, Taylorsville) that does not produce any methylated resins and
is collocated with a formaldehyde plant.
In addition, the data were evaluated for patterns of applied
secondary controls versus the production capacity of facilities. Again,
no patterns emerged. One combustion device is located at a 816 Mg/yr
producer (Ranbar), and the other combustion device is located at a
69,853 Mg/yr producer (Georgia Pacific, Taylorsville). These production
capacities are typical small and large facilities, respectively.
In conclusion, because of the good distribution of methylators and
non-methylators, facilities collocated with formaldehyde plants and
those not, and amino only, phenolic only, and amino/
[[Page 68844]]
phenolic producers within the best performing 5 facilities, the best
performing 5 facilities were considered representative of the industry.
The EPA considered two options for the MACT floor. The options
considered included selecting the percent reduction for the median
facility or averaging the percent reduction values for the best
performing 5 facilities, and then determining the alternate kilogram of
HAP per megagram of product emission limit in a similar manner. The
option selected uses the median facility for establishing the percent
reduction and the alternate emission limit. The Georgia Pacific, Port
Wentworth facility represents the median facility of the best
performing 5. Using the percent reduction value and the emission factor
for this facility, the MACT floor was selected as 93 percent emission
reduction with an alternative emission limit of 0.017 kilogram of HAP
per megagram of product.
The option of averaging the percent reductions for the best
performing 5 facilities was not selected because providing the
corresponding alternate emissions limit would require averaging the
emissions factors for the best performing 5 facilities. Because the
emission factor for Ranbar (0.84 kilogram of HAP per megagram of
product) is much higher than would be expected for a facility with a
combustion device, the EPA judged that this approach would not provide
a reasonable alternative emissions limit.
The MACT floor for new sources is set by the best controlled source
(here, the best controlled amino/phenolic resin facility). In selecting
the best controlled facility, the Ranbar and Georgia Pacific,
Taylorsville facilities were considered as equally controlled. Because
the emission factor for the Ranbar facility is judged to be
exceptionally high considering the reported secondary controls, the
Georgia Pacific, Taylorsville facility was selected as the best
controlled facility. Therefore, the MACT floor for reactor batch
process vents at new affected sources was selected as 95 percent
emission reduction with an alternative emission limit of 0.01 kilogram
of HAP per megagram of product.
Non-Reactor Batch Process Vents
The MACT floor for existing sources is set by the average
performance for the best performing 12 percent of existing sources.
Here, the amino/phenolic resin facility is the ``source.'' Because
there are 40 amino/phenolic resin facilities in the source category for
which EPA has emissions information, the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources is represented by the best performing 5 facilities.
The best performing 5 facilities were selected based on the overall
emission reduction achieved by for non-reactor batch process vents by
each facility. All of the best performing 5 facilities had applied
controls to some of their non-reactor batch process vents, and 2 of the
best performing 5 facilities had applied controls to all of their non-
reactor batch process vents. This baseline control situation, and the
limited data set available for the analysis, led the EPA to consider a
single option for the development of existing source MACT floor based
on achieving a specified emission reduction for the collection of non-
reactor batch process vents within the affected source. Based on the
data presented in Table 5, an average facility-wide emission reduction
value was calculated as 68 percent.
Table 5.--Best Performing 5 Facilities For Non-Reactor Batch Process Vents Based on Overall Percent Reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncont'd Cont'd Primary
Company Location Emission point Emission point emis. emis. Primary control device Second. control Second. device Combined
description (tpy) (tpy) device eff.% device eff.% eff.%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schenectady.................... Rotterdam E14 Weigh tank........ 0.247 0.247 None.............. NR None.
Junction, NY.
Schenectady.................... Rotterdam E5/E6 Separator Tank.... 24.1 0.241 Condenser......... NR Scrubber......... NR 99.5
Junction, NY.
Schenectady.................... Rotterdam E7 Hold Tank......... 25.2 0.252 Condenser......... 99 None............. NR NR
Junction, NY.
Schenectady.................... Rotterdam E4 Holding Tank...... 12.1 12.1 None.............. ......... None.
Junction, NY.
Schenectady.................... Rotterdam E15/E16 Mix Tank Unit..... 7.31 0.3654 Condenser......... NR Scrubber......... NR 95
Junction, NY.
Schenectady.................... Rotterdam E20 Separator Unit.... 21.7 0.11 Condenser......... NR Scrubber......... 99.5
Junction, NY.
Schenectady.................... Rotterdam E19 Hold Tank......... 6.76 0.879 Condenser......... 87 None.
Junction, NY.
Schenectady.................... Rotterdam E21 Recycle System.... 0.182 0.182 None.............. None.
Junction, NY.
Schenectady.................... Rotterdam E22/E23 Recycle Tank...... 2.31 0.0231 Condenser......... 99 None.
Junction, NY.
Schenectady.................... Rotterdam E24 Flaking belt...... 5.67 2.84 Scrubber.......... NR None.
Junction, NY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Emission Reduction for non-reactor batch process vents is 83.7 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borden......................... Louisville, KY.... E1A Weigh Tank/Fixed 0.25 0.12 Scrubber.......... 90 None.
Roof.
Borden......................... Louisville, KY.... E2A Weigh Tank/Fixed 0.5 0.05 Scrubber.......... 90 None.
Roof.
Borden......................... Louisville, KY.... E8 Recovery (phenol). 0.004 0.004 None.............. None.
[[Page 68845]]
Borden......................... Louisville, KY.... E11 Cooling & Flaking. 0.005 0.005 Scrubber.......... 90 None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Emission Reduction for non-reactor batch process vents is 77 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynachem....................... Georgetown, IL.... E9 Weigh Tank........ 0.25 0.075 Scrubber.......... 72 None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Emission Reduction for non-reactor batch process vents is 70 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia........................ Addyston, OH...... E3 Methanol weigh 0.81 0.81 Vapor balance..... NR None.
tank.
Solutia........................ Addyston, OH...... E4 Formaldehyde weigh 0.014 0.014 None.............. ......... None.
tank.
Solutia........................ Addyston, OH...... E7 Distillation 1.44 0.22 Scrubber.......... 85 None.
Overhead Tank.
Solutia........................ Addyston, OH...... E6 Distillation Feed 0.261 0.039 Scrubber.......... 85 None.
Tank.
Solutia........................ Addyston, OH...... E8 Distillation 0.352 0.053 Scrubber.......... 85 None.
Bottom Tank.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Emission Reduction for non-reactor batch process vents is 60.5 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borden......................... Fayetteville, NC.. E2 Weigh Tank........ 0.084 0.042 Scrubber.......... 50 None.
Borden......................... Fayetteville, NC.. E2 Weigh Tank........ 0.264 0.132 Scrubber.......... 50 None.
Borden......................... Fayetteville, NC.. E2 Weigh Tank........ 0.209 0.1045 Scrubber.......... 50 None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Emission Reduction for non-reactor batch process vents is 50 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility-wide uncontrolled emissions from non-reactor batch process
vents were chosen as the applicability criteria, because it was the
only available data, and because the EPA judged that the applicability
criteria, like the control level, should be an overall value as opposed
to an individual process vent specific value. The uncontrolled
emissions cutoff of 0.23 Mg/yr (0.25 tpy) represents the smallest
facility-wide uncontrolled emissions from non-reactor batch process
vents for a facility in the best performing 5. The smallest value was
selected to ensure that all the facilities included in setting the MACT
floor would be represented by the applicability criteria.
Putting together the control level and applicability criteria, the
MACT floor for non-reactor batch process vents at existing sources
requires an overall emissions reduction of 68 percent for the
collection of non-reactor batch process vents within the source for
sources with uncontrolled emissions from the collection of non-reactor
batch process vents greater than or equal to 0.23 Mg/yr (0.25 tpy).
The MACT floor for new sources is set by the best controlled
source. Using the overall emission reduction for a facility approach,
the best controlled facility achieves an overall emission reduction of
83.7 percent; this value was rounded down to 83 percent.
The CAAA states that existing source MACT can be less stringent
than new source MACT. By implication, new source MACT cannot be less
stringent than existing source MACT. Therefore, the uncontrolled
facility-wide emissions cutoff of 0.23 Mg/yr (0.25 tpy) was used
because the uncontrolled emissions at the best controlled facility are
96 Mg/yr (106 tpy). If the value of 96 Mg/yr (106 tpy) were used, the
new source standard would be less stringent than the existing source
standard. Therefore, the MACT floor for non-reactor batch process vents
at new sources requires an overall emissions reduction of 83 percent
from the collection of non-reactor batch process vents within the
source for sources with uncontrolled emissions from the collection of
non-reactor batch process vents greater than or equal to 0.23 Mg/yr
(0.25 tpy).
4. Wastewater Streams
The MACT floor for existing and new sources is based on controls at
baseline. No facilities that are major sources were identified as
controlling their wastewater. Therefore, the MACT floor for existing
and new sources is no control.
5. Equipment Leaks
The MACT floor for existing sources is set by the average
performance for the best performing 12 percent of existing sources.
Here, the amino/phenolic resin facility is the ``source.'' Because
there are 40 amino/phenolic resin facilities in the source category for
which EPA has emissions information, the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources is represented by the best performing 5 facilities.
The only source identified as having a leak detection and repair (LDAR)
program subject to local, State, or Federal regulations is Solutia's
Springfield, MA, facility. A number of other facilities have been
identified as having a maintenance-type LDAR program. These
maintenance-type programs are likely to be less effective at reducing
emissions than the LDAR program in place at the Solutia, Springfield
facility. Unfortunately, no information is available to quantify the
emission reduction being achieved from these maintenance-type programs.
Therefore, the average of the best performing 5 facilities cannot be
defined at this time, and the MACT floor for equipment leaks for
existing sources is considered to be no control.
The MACT floor for new sources is set by the best controlled source
(here, the
[[Page 68846]]
best controlled amino/phenolic resins facility). As noted in the
previous paragraph, only one affected source has been identified as
having a LDAR program as the result of local, State, or Federal
regulations, while others have a maintenance-type LDAR program.
Therefore, the MACT floor for new affected sources is represented by
the LDAR program at the Solutia, Springfield facility.
6. Regulatory Alternatives Beyond the MACT Floor
This section discusses the regulatory alternatives beyond the MACT
floor that were evaluated for each of the six emission points where
applicable.
The MACT floor for storage vessels at existing sources was
identified as 50 percent. The MACT floor for storage vessels at new
sources was identified as 50 percent for aqueous formaldehyde storage
vessels and 95 percent for non-aqueous formaldehyde storage vessels.
For those storage vessels with a 50 percent emission reduction MACT
floor, the EPA judged that the incremental emission reductions and
costs would result in an incremental cost effectiveness value that was
unacceptable. This judgment was based on the small incremental emission
reduction that would be achieved versus the large incremental cost in
moving from a Scrubber to a combustion device. Although the change in
percentage from 50 percent to 95 percent appears to be significant, the
low level of HAP emitted from the storage vessels in this source
category would yield a small incremental emission reduction being
achieved.
The HON process vent provisions were evaluated as a regulatory
alternative beyond the MACT floor for continuous process vents.
Evaluation of the available data indicated that none of the continuous
process vents for which data were available would meet the HON TRE
applicability criteria of 1.0. For existing sources, the TRE values
ranged from 4.4 to 93.2. For new sources, the TRE values range from 1.2
to 25.4.
Based on the calculated TRE values, it is very unlikely that any
continuous process vents at an existing source would be caught by the
HON TRE applicability criteria. As the TRE values show (i.e., 4.4 to
93.2), these types of continuous process vents are not cost-effective
to control. Therefore, the HON process vent provisions were not
selected as the regulatory alternative for existing sources.
While the TRE values show that none of the continuous process vents
considered in the analysis would be caught by the HON TRE applicability
for new sources, the EPA judged that if a new source were to have a
continuous process vent within the cost-effectiveness accepted by the
EPA (i.e., with a TRE of 1.0 or less), it should be controlled.
Therefore, a two-tiered approach, utilizing the MACT floor level of
control for some continuous process vents and the HON provisions for
other continuous process vents, was chosen as the regulatory
alternative for new affected sources. The HON provisions were included
in the selected regulatory alternative because it has been proven
through past analyses that the HON provisions are a cost effective
approach for controlling continuous process vents. A two-tiered
approach was used because the MACT floor is more stringent than the
HON; the MACT floor controls continuous process vents that the HON
would not control.
The proposed standard for continuous process vents at new sources
utilizes the MACT floor level of control and the HON process vent
provisions to establish a two-tiered standard. For continuous process
vents with a TRE greater than 1.0 but less than 1.2, 85 percent
emission reduction is required (i.e., MACT floor). For continuous
process vents with a TRE value of 1.0 or less, 98 percent emission
reduction is required (i.e., HON). For process vents with a TRE value
greater than 1.2, controls are not required. TRE values are estimated
using the TRE equations from the HON for a thermal incinerator with 70
percent heat recovery.
The proposed rule does not contain any requirements for the control
of continuous process vents at existing sources.
Because the MACT floor level of control for reactor batch process
vents at existing sources was based on scrubbers with 93 percent
control, the next step was to consider combustion controls as a
regulatory alternative beyond the MACT floor. However, this option was
not chosen, because the EPA judged that the incremental emission
reductions and costs would result in an incremental cost effectiveness
value that was unacceptable. This judgment was based on the small
incremental emission reduction that would be achieved in moving from
93% emission reduction to 95% or 98% emission reduction versus the
large incremental cost in moving from a scrubber to a combustion
device.
Not enough information on beyond the MACT floor options for non-
reactor batch process vents was available to justify selecting a
regulatory alternative beyond the MACT floor.
A monitoring program to detect leaks from the process into the
cooling water was selected as the standard for heat exchange systems.
This monitoring program is the same as the HON program (subpart F).
Because heat exchange systems have been identified as a potential
source of emissions, the EPA judges that proposing a standard to cover
this emission point is warranted. However, the EPA is not aware if any
heat exchange systems exist in the amino/phenolic resin industry and
would like to solicit comments from interested persons on this subject.
The request for comment on heat exchange systems is discussed in
Section VI of this preamble.
The HON was considered as a regulatory alternative for both
existing and new sources for wastewater streams. To evaluate the HON as
a regulatory alternative, the available stream data were compared to
the HON applicability criteria. No wastewater streams were affected by
the HON existing source or new source applicability criteria. It should
be noted that there were very little data available for wastewater
streams and that for those streams for which data were available, the
data were partial (i.e., indicating either wastewater flow or HAP
concentration, but not both). However, based on the data, it appeared
unlikely that a wastewater stream would be covered by the HON
applicability criteria.
The EPA conducted an analysis to determine if a wastewater stream
that was covered at the limit of the applicability criteria (i.e.,
having just enough flow and just enough HAP concentration) would be
cost effective to control. The results of this analysis were that cost
effectiveness values ranged from $300 per ton of HAP removed to $41,100
per ton of HAP removed. Based on these results, the EPA judged that the
HON would be an acceptable regulatory alternative. However, the best
available data do not indicate that any wastewater streams at existing
affected sources will definitely require control. Without an indication
that imposition of the HON wastewater standards would achieve any
amount of emission reductions at existing sources, the EPA did not find
the cost of the applicability analysis and recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, which would be experienced regardless of whether or not a
wastewater stream required control, to be justified. Therefore,
wastewater streams at existing sources are not required to be
controlled.
However, the HON was chosen by the EPA as the standard for new
sources.
[[Page 68847]]
The EPA believes that because new sources will already be required to
characterize their emissions for the Title V permit application, the
additional cost of the applicability analysis associated with the
wastewater provisions would be acceptable given the potential for
reducing emissions.
For equipment leaks at existing sources, two regulatory
alternatives were identified--(1) 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV and (2)
the HON LDAR program under 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. For new sources,
the regulatory alternative evaluated was the application of the HON
LDAR program, because the MACT floor is equivalent to the subpart
program.
In conducting the regulatory analysis, there are several items that
need to be identified to determine whether or not any of the regulatory
alternatives are cost effective. First, component counts for each of
the major sources need to be determined. Second, estimates of emissions
and emission reductions need to be made. Third, the costs associated
with the LDAR programs need to be estimated. The details of the methods
used in the regulatory alternative analysis are presented in Chapter 6
of the Basis & Purpose Document.
Table 6 presents the results of the cost effectiveness analysis for
both new and existing sources. As seen in Table 6, the average cost
effectiveness of implementing the SOCMI Subpart VV LDAR program (i.e.,
a program equivalent to the MACT floor for new sources) from baseline
at each of the amino/phenolic resin facilities is $4,207 per megagram
of emission reduction. The average incremental cost effectiveness of
implementing the HON LDAR program from baseline is $2,608 per megagram
of emission reduction. The average incremental cost effectiveness of
going from the SOCMI Subpart VV program to the HON program is $1,343
per megagram of emission reduction.
The EPA judged the cost effectiveness values associated with the
HON LDAR program to be reasonable and, therefore, selected the HON LDAR
program as the proposed standards for equipment leaks at both existing
and new affected sources.
Table 6.--Summary of Regulatory Analysis for Equipment Leaks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCMI,
Item subpart VV HON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Reduction from Baseline (Mg/yr)...... 52.6 119.0
Costs ($)..................................... 221,313 310,465
Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg)..................... 4,207 2,608
Incremental Emission Reduction (Mg/yr)........ ........... 66.4
Incremental Costs ($)......................... ........... 89,152
Incremental Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg)......... ........... 1,343
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Alternative Standard
The proposed rule would provide an alternative standard for storage
vessels, continuous process vents, and batch process vents that are
equipped with add-on control devices. The alternative standard requires
that emissions from these types of emission points be vented to a
control device that is continuously achieving an outlet concentration
of 20 ppmv. For emissions points vented to such a control device, it is
not necessary to calculate the percent reduction achieved by the
control device. Any storage vessels, continuous process vents, or batch
process vents not vented to such a control device are subject to the
other control provisions in the proposed rule. All process vent and
storage vessel emissions that are manifolded to a common control device
are considered as one regulated entity under the alternative standard.
As determined during the development of the HON, 20 ppmv is the
physical limit that a combustion device can be expected to achieve. For
purposes of the proposed rule, setting an alternative standard that is
equivalent to the level achieved through combustion is equivalent to or
more stringent than the MACT floors and the selected standards for the
proposed rule.
The alternative standard is included because the EPA believes that
there will be a number of facilities and State regulators that will
benefit from a regulatory alternative that encourages aggregating and
treating emissions with a state-of-the-art common control device. The
alternative standard included in the proposed rule can be applied to
individual emission points that have emissions that are controlled with
add-on control devices or to emission points that are manifolded
together prior to treatment in an end-of-line control device (or series
of devices).
8. Implementation of a 800 Megagram per Year Production Cutoff for
Equipment Leaks
In response to the prediction by the economic impacts analysis that
5 facilities (3 small businesses) may experience a product line closure
(see Section VII.F) based on implementing the standards described in
Sections V.C.1 through V.C.6 of this preamble, the EPA reevaluated
those areas where the selected standard was more stringent than the
MACT floor (see Section V.C.6 of this preamble). The only emission
point where the selected standard was more stringent than the MACT
floor was equipment leaks. The EPA also evaluated those facilities
predicted to experience adverse economic impacts. The EPA found that 4
of these facilities, including the 3 facilities owned by small
businesses, had the lowest actual annual production of all 40 major
sources expected to be subject to the proposed rule, and the range of
production values for these 4 facilities was distinctive from the fifth
facility predicted to experience a product line closure. When the
requirement to comply with the equipment leak provisions was removed
from the 4 facilities with the lowest production values, a revised
economic impacts analysis showed that predicted product line closures
were reduced from a product line closure at 5 facilities to only 2
facilities. These 2 facilities are comprised of 1 of the 4 facilities
for which equipment leak costs were dropped and the fifth facility
(i.e., the facility with production distinctive from the other 4
facilities). Further, the two facilities still predicted to experience
a product line closure were not owned by small businesses. Based on the
results above, the EPA implemented an actual annual production cutoff
of 800 megagrams per year for the equipment leaks requirements.
The EPA took this action to mitigate adverse impacts to small
businesses while staying within statutory requirements. The value of
800 megagrams per year was selected based on inspection of the data and
a sensitivity analysis. First, based on inspection of the data, all 4
facilities reported actual annual production values less than 800
megagrams per year. Second, a sensitivity analysis showed that when
equipment leak costs were removed for the ``fifth facility,'' the
economic analysis still predicted product line closure for this
facility.
[[Page 68848]]
D. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Rule
The proposed standards adopt the formats found in the HON for the
following emission points: storage vessels, continuous process vents,
wastewater, equipment leaks, and heat exchange systems. The Federal
Register notice for the proposed HON (57 FR 62608; December 31, 1992)
provides the rationale for the selection of the specific formats used
in the final rule for the HON. Justification for use of a work practice
standard for equipment leaks, as opposed to a numerical limit, is
included in the HON rationale; such justification is required under
Section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act Amendments. The EPA finds no reason
for changing those formats and, therefore, has adopted the same formats
for this proposed rule as have been promulgated for the HON.
For batch process vents, three formats were selected. For reactor
batch process vents, the proposed rule requires that emissions are
reduced by a certain percent (i.e., 93 percent at existing sources and
95 percent at new sources) over the batch cycle. As an alternative, the
proposed rule allows a demonstration that emissions are limited to
0.017 kilogram of HAP per megagram of product at existing sources or
0.01 kilogram of HAP per megagram of product at new sources. For non-
reactor batch process vents, the proposed rule requires that the
emissions from the collection of non-reactor batch process vents within
the affected source are reduced by 68 percent at existing sources and
by 83 percent at new sources. For sources with 0.23 Mg/yr (0.25 tpy) or
more of uncontrolled emissions from the collection of non-reactor batch
process vents within the source.
For reactor batch process vents, the need to establish a format
that considered the nature of batch process vent emissions and the
limitations of control devices in achieving constant performance was a
major factor in selecting the format of the standard. A percent
reduction format is commonly used for process vents, as in the HON,
however, requiring a constant emission reduction does not account for
the emissions profile of a batch process vent. Therefore, as was done
in the Batch Processes ACT, the selected format requires a percent
reduction over the batch cycle. This allows the performance of a
control device to fluctuate over the batch cycle. This format also
allows an owner or operator to elect to control certain portions of the
emissions and not control other portions. For example, if a batch
process vent had a short period with a high emissions rate and longer
periods with very low emissions rates, the selected format allows an
owner or operator to over-control (i.e., achieve a percent reduction
higher than that required in the standard) the short period of high
emissions and not control or under-control the longer periods of low
emissions.
As an alternative to demonstrating a percent reduction for the
batch cycle, an emission limit expressed as kilogram of HAP per
megagram of product was selected as an alternative format. The
alternative emission limit is included to provide flexibility and to
avoid requiring sources with inherently low emissions to apply
secondary controls, thereby encouraging pollution prevention
activities.
Similar to reactor batch process vents, establishing a format for
non-reactor batch process vents required consideration of the nature of
batch process vent emissions and the limitations of control devices in
achieving constant performance. A primary factor in expressing the
standard for non-reactor batch process vents as an overall emission
reduction requirement was the limited data available to the EPA. As
discussed earlier, the data available for the best performing 5
facilities that were used in developing the MACT floor included two
facilities that had all their non-reactor batch process vents
controlled, and this situation, coupled with the lack of stream-
specific data, led the EPA to express the standard as an overall
percent reduction for the collection of non-reactor batch process vents
within an affected source.
E. Selection of Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
Compliance and performance test provisions for the proposed rule
are based on the HON, referring readers directly to the HON provisions.
Because the rationale for the referenced HON provisions has been
presented in detail in the proposal and promulgation preambles to the
HON, it is not repeated here. However, specific test methods to be used
have changed, and the rationale for the selected test methods is
discussed below.
Because of the specific HAP emitted by amino/phenolic resin
facilities, the test methods specified in the HON are not completely
adequate for the proposed rule. Specifically, formaldehyde is not
adequately detected using either Method 18 or Method 25A of appendix A,
40 CFR part 60. Therefore, the following test methods have been added
specifically for formaldehyde: Methods 316 and 320. Method 316 is a
manual method that was proposed with the Mineral Wool NESHAP (62 FR
25370) and Method 320 is an FTIR-based method that was proposed with
the Portland Cement NESHAP (63 FR 14181). Further, Method 18 does not
always adequately detect methanol, and Method 308 has been included as
an option for testing for methanol. The test methods identified above
have been included in the proposed rule in order to ensure that
compliance with the proposed rule can be accurately demonstrated.
Without the formaldehyde specific test methods, a predominant HAP would
not be detected during performance tests or estimation of emissions.
While Method 18 is considered adequate for the measurement of methanol,
more accurate measurements are possible with Method 308. Therefore,
Method 308 has been included as an optional test method for methanol.
The proposed rule specifies procedures to be followed when
conducting performance tests, referring to the General Provisions of
Subpart A as appropriate. One modification to the General Provisions
testing procedures is that the proposed rule requires that all tests be
conducted under maximum representative operating conditions; this term
is defined in the rule. The intent of maximum representative operating
conditions is for the owner or operator, within a specified time period
and without rearranging production schedules, to conduct the test under
the maximum HAP loading that the control device would experience. For
example, if a control device receives emissions from three batch
process vents and two of them frequently vent to the control device at
the same time, testing should be conducted when at least two of the
batch process vents are venting to the control device, as opposed to
when only one is venting.
Compliance with the batch process vent provisions is demonstrated
by showing that for the batch cycle, if an individual reactor batch
process vent is being controlled, or on an overall basis, if non-
reactor batch process vents are being controlled, the specified percent
reduction is achieved. To demonstrate this, an emissions profile must
be developed that identifies each batch emission episode included in
the batch process vent and characterizes emissions from each batch
emission episode on a mass emitted per unit time basis. Using this
emissions profile, the owner or operator must demonstrate that the
periods of under-control and over-control of emissions balance, and
[[Page 68849]]
the batch cycle percent reduction or the overall percent reduction is
achieved.
The procedures for demonstrating compliance with the percent
reduction requirements are largely based on the promulgated Group IV
Polymers and Resins NESHAP. The intention of the procedures is to allow
owners or operators to select the optimum scenario for controlling the
batch process vent(s) at their facility and to provide flexibility for
an owner or operator to consider the nature of batch process vent
emissions and the limitations of control devices in achieving constant
performance. The following are examples of how the compliance
demonstration procedures for percent reduction would work, first, for
an individual reactor batch process vent and, second, for the
collection of non-reactor batch process vents within an affected
source.
For an individual reactor batch process vent at an existing
affected source, the proposed rule requires an owner or operator to
reduce emissions by 93 percent for the batch cycle. For this example, a
given reactor batch process vent has three batch emission episodes:
charging, heating, and purging. Emissions from charging have a high
flow rate and a high HAP concentration level. Emissions from heating
have a very low flow rate and very low HAP concentration level.
Emissions from purging have a moderate flow rate and moderate HAP
concentration level. The owner or operator chooses to control the
charging episode and the purging episode and to not control the heating
episode. In this example, the two controlled batch emission episodes
must be over-controlled to a level sufficient to offset not controlling
the heating episode. In the final step of the compliance demonstration
procedure (see Sec. 63.1417(e)(5)(iii) of the proposed rule), emissions
at the outlet of the control device are subtracted from the sum of
emissions from the uncontrolled episode and emissions at the inlet of
the control device. This value is divided by the sum of emissions from
the uncontrolled episode and emissions at the inlet of the control
device, and this quotient is multiplied by 100 and compared to the
required 93 percent reduction requirement.
For the collection of non-reactor batch process vents at an
affected source, a similar example can be described. In this example
there are 10 non-reactor batch process vents, 7 with significant
emissions and 3 with insignificant emissions. The owner or operator
chooses to over-control (e.g., achieve 80 percent emission reduction
instead of the required 68 percent) the 7 non-reactor batch process
vents with significant emissions. Using the same equation as described
above (see Sec. 63.1417(e)(5)(iii) of the proposed rule), the owner or
operator demonstrates that periods of under-control and over-control
balance, and the specified percent reduction is achieved for the
collection of non-reactor batch process vents.
For demonstrating compliance with the kilogram of HAP per megagram
of product emission limits, the proposed rule requires that an owner or
operator determine the monthly average emission rate (i.e., kilogram of
HAP per megagram of product) each month and then calculate a rolling
average to determine compliance with the emission limit. Estimates of
emissions on a batch emission episode level are based on either direct
measurement or other means specified in the proposed rule. Direct
measurement is required when engineering assessment shows that 10 tons
per year or more of HAP are emitted from an individual batch process
vent. Once emissions have been characterized for a batch emission
episode, monthly emissions are determined based on the number and type
of batch emission episodes run during the month. Once emissions have
been characterized for a batch emission episode using direct
measurement or other means, the determined values can be used in
estimating monthly emissions unless the owner or operator has reason to
believe that the emissions estimate for a given batch emission episode
is no longer valid.
For the first 12 months of operation, the rolling average is
determined based on all the available monthly averages. Beginning after
the thirteenth month of operation, the rolling average is a 12-month
rolling average based on the individual monthly averages for the
preceding 12 months.
F. Selection of Parameter Monitoring Provisions
1. Enhanced Monitoring
Section 114(a)(3) of the Act and Sec. 70.6(c) of the operating
permit rule (57 FR 32251; 40 CFR 70.6(c)) require the submission of
``compliance certifications'' from sources subject to the operating
permit program. Section 114(a)(3) of the Act requires enhanced
monitoring and compliance certifications of all major stationary
sources. The annual compliance certifications certify whether
compliance has been continuous or intermittent.
2. Background
In general, the EPA recognizes two basic approaches to monitoring.
One method is to establish monitoring as a direct measure of continuous
compliance. Under this continuous compliance monitoring approach, an
enforceable value of the monitored parameter is defined and measured.
The Agency has adopted this approach in Part 63 standards, and is
committed to following this approach whenever appropriate in future
rulemakings. Another approach is to establish monitoring for the
purpose of documenting continued operation of the control measures
within ranges of specified indicators of performance (such as
emissions, control device parameters, and process parameters) that are
designed to provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with
applicable requirements; indicating excursions from these ranges; and
responding to the data so that excursions are corrected. This second
approach is the basis of the Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM)
rule, which applies to sources that are not currently subject to Part
63 standards.
When determining appropriate continuous compliance monitoring
options, EPA considers the availability and feasibility of the
following monitoring strategies in a ``top-down'' fashion: (1)
Continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for the actual HAP
emitted, (2) CEMS for HAP surrogates (e.g., monitoring for the
predominant HAP or total organic compounds as opposed to monitoring for
all regulated HAP), (3) monitoring operating parameters, and (4) work
practice standards. Thus, where available and feasible, the EPA
specifies CEMS for the actual regulated compound(s) for continuous
compliance monitoring. This option allows continuous compliance to be
determined relative to the emission limit, just as short-term
compliance is determined using a performance test. Where a CEMS for the
regulated pollutant is not available or feasible, the EPA specifies
monitoring a surrogate compound with a CEMS or monitoring an operating
parameter that is critical to maintaining compliance performance. Only
when these options are not feasible does EPA specify work practice
standards as a means of ensuring continuous compliance.
When a Part 63 rule specifies a surrogate pollutant CEMS or
parameter monitoring for demonstrating continuous compliance, the rule
includes specific limitations and averaging times for these alternative
[[Page 68850]]
situations. The surrogate pollutant or operating parameter limit
becomes an enforceable limit for the rule. There is no requirement that
an alternative limit, whether a surrogate pollutant or operational
parameter, be statistically correlated with emissions or the compliance
level of the regulated pollutant(s). The alternative limit is a
separately enforceable requirement of the rule. The alternative limit
is not secondary to the emission limit; rather, it is applied in lieu
of a continuous emission limit obligation that would otherwise be
measured with a CEMS.
To address the potential disparity between CEMS for the actual HAP
emitted and CEMS for HAP surrogate or operating parameter monitoring,
there are two types of violations--violations of the emission limit and
violations of operating limits. Exceedances of CEMS for the actual HAP
are considered violations of the emission limit. Exceedances of CEMS
for HAP surrogate or operating parameter monitoring are considered
violations of an operating limit. Specifically speaking to the proposed
rule, where a source is using an FTIR instrument to monitor compliance
with the 20 ppmv alternative standard, an exceedance is defined as a
violation of the emission limit. Where a source is monitoring an
operating parameter for a control device (e.g., pH of the scrubber
liquid), an exceedance is defined as a violation of the operating
limit. An exception is that because the exit gas temperature of a
condenser is so closely correlated with emissions, an exceedance of the
condenser temperature monitoring range is considered a violation of the
emission limit.
3. Specific Monitoring Requirements of this Subpart
The proposed rule requires monitoring of HAP emissions and control
and recovery device operating parameters. HAP emissions are monitored
directly as part of complying with the kilogram of HAP emissions per
megagram of product limits for reactor batch process vents or as part
of the 20 ppmv alternative standard. Control device operating
parameters are monitored as part of complying with the percent
reduction requirements of the proposed rule.
Exceptions to the requirement to conduct continuous parameter
monitoring are that control devices controlling less than 1 ton per
year of uncontrolled emissions are exempt, but must conduct a daily or
per batch demonstration that the control device is operating properly.
The EPA judged that control devices receiving such small amounts of
emissions did not warrant the expense and paperwork burden of
establishing parameter monitoring levels and conducting continuous
parameter monitoring. The compliance demonstration procedure is subject
to review by the Administrator. Another exception is that owners or
operators of control devices serving storage vessels are not required
to conduct parameter monitoring unless the owner or operator specifies
continuous monitoring in the monitoring plan required by the referenced
HON provisions. However, if a control device is used, the owners or
operator must identify the appropriate monitoring procedures to be
followed for compliance demonstration purposes. Further, if a control
device serves both a storage vessel(s) and another emission point
subject to the proposed rule, the control device is subject to
continuous parameter monitoring if the other emission point is subject
to continuous parameter monitoring.
An owner or operator may apply to monitor alternate parameters.
This provision has been included in previous rules and provides
flexibility to the owner or operator who would like to monitor a
parameter other than those identified in the rule.
Parameter monitoring levels are established based on design
evaluation for control devices with uncontrolled emissions less than 10
tons per year; however, approval by the Administrator is required. The
EPA judged that allowing a design evaluation for control devices
receiving less than 10 tons per year of uncontrolled emissions was a
reasonable balance between reducing burden and cost to the industry and
protecting the environment. For all other control devices required to
conduct continuous monitoring, parameter monitoring levels are
established based on a performance test, but can be supplemented by
manufacturer's recommendations and/or an engineering assessment. If the
results of the performance test are supplemented by manufacturer's
recommendations and/or engineering assessment, approval by the
Administrator is required.
The proposed rule requires the affected source to record daily
average values for most monitored parameters. The daily averaging
period was selected because the purpose of monitoring data is to ensure
proper operation and maintenance of the control device. Because it
often takes from 12 to 24 hours to correct a problem, this averaging
period was considered to best reflect operation and maintenance
practices. This averaging period therefore gives the owner or operator
a reasonable period of time to take action. If a shorter averaging
period (for example 3 hours) was selected, affected sources would be
likely to have multiple excursions caused by the same operational
problem because it would not be possible to correct problems in one 3-
hour period.
For batch process vents, parameter averages may be either batch
cycle daily averages or block averages. Using the same rationale as
presented above for daily averages, batch cycle daily averages and
block averages are included as options in the proposed rule so that
monitoring can reflect operation and maintenance practices. The block
is defined by the owner or operator and can be no longer than the batch
cycle for a batch process vent. Using a block average would allow an
owner or operator with a batch cycle that exceeds 24 hours to calculate
parameter monitoring averages for the entire batch cycle, which is
likely the most reflective period for observing the performance and
operation of the control device. For batch cycles that are shorter than
24 hours, the batch cycle daily average allows owners or operators the
same benefits extended to control devices receiving emissions from
continuous sources.
G. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The general recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this
subpart are very similar to those found in the HON. The proposed rule
also relies on the 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.
The proposed rule would require affected sources to submit the
following reports: Precompliance Report; Notification of Compliance
Status; Periodic Reports; and Other Reports. The purpose and contents
of each of these reports are described in this section.
The wording of the proposed rule requires all draft reports to be
submitted to the ``Administrator''. The term Administrator is defined
in Sec. 63.2 as ``the Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency or his or her authorized representative.'' Thus, the
term Administrator may include either the Administrator of the EPA, an
EPA regional office, a State agency, or other entity that has been
delegated the authority to implement the proposed rule. In most cases,
reports will be sent to State agencies. Addresses are provided in
subpart A of part 63.
Records of reported information and other information necessary to
[[Page 68851]]
document compliance with the regulation are generally required to be
kept for 5 years. A few records pertaining to equipment design would be
kept for the life of the equipment.
1. Precompliance Report
The Precompliance Report includes the following, as appropriate:
compliance extension requests; requests to monitor alternative
parameters; intent to use alternative controls; intent to use the
alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping allowed by the
rule; demonstration that the emissions estimation equations for batch
process vents are not appropriate; and information related to
establishing parameter monitoring levels, if required.
These types of information are required prior to the compliance
date to allow sufficient review time for the Administrator. To avoid
delays caused by a lack of response from the Administrator, some items
are considered approved if the Administrator does not respond within a
given period of time.
2. Notification of Compliance Status
The Notification of Compliance Status would be submitted 150 days
after the affected source's compliance date. It contains the
information necessary to demonstrate that compliance has been achieved,
such as the results of performance tests, design analyses, and
demonstrations of compliance (e.g., demonstration that the overall
percent reduction for non-reactor batch process vents has been
achieved).
Affected sources with a large number of emission points are likely
to be submitting results of multiple performance tests for each kind of
emission point. For each test method used for a particular kind of
emission point (e.g., a process vent), one complete test report would
be submitted. For additional tests performed for the same kind of
emission point using the same method, the results would be submitted,
but a complete test report is not required. Results would include
values needed to determine compliance (e.g., inlet and outlet
concentrations, flowrates, percent reduction) as well as the values of
monitored parameters averaged over the period of the test. The
submission of one test report will allow the regulatory authority to
verify that the affected source has followed the correct sampling and
analytical procedures and has done calculations correctly. Complete
test reports for other emission points may be kept at the plant rather
than submitted. This reporting system was established to ensure that
reviewing authorities have sufficient information to evaluate the
monitoring and testing used to demonstrate compliance while minimizing
the reporting burden.
Information demonstrating that the specified percent reduction is
being achieved for the batch cycle, if an individual reactor batch
process vent is being controlled, or on an overall basis, if non-
reactor batch process vents are being controlled, is required. This
information includes an emissions profile and a demonstration that the
periods of under-control and over-control of emissions balance and the
batch cycle percent reduction or the overall percent reduction is
achieved.
Another type of information to be included in the Notification of
Compliance Status is the specific level for each monitored parameter
for each emission point, and the rationale for why this level indicates
proper operation of the control device. If this information has already
been provided in the operating permit, it does not need to be repeated
in the Notification of Compliance Status. As an example, for a batch
process vent controlled by a scrubber, the site-specific liquid
flowrate into or out of the scrubber, or the pressure drop across the
scrubber, that will ensure proper operation of the scrubber is
required. For control devices receiving 10 tons per year or more of
uncontrolled emissions (i.e., large control devices), the parameter
monitoring data from the performance test that supports the calculated
parameter monitoring levels is required to be included in the
notification. Further, if the owner or operator had chosen to
supplement the results of the performance test with manufacturer's
recommendations and/or engineering assessment, the rationale to support
the specified parameter levels is required. For control devices
receiving less than 10 tons per year of uncontrolled emissions (i.e.,
small control devices), a design evaluation that supports the parameter
monitoring levels is required to be included in the notification.
Finally, for control devices receiving less than 1 ton per year of
uncontrolled emissions, the daily or per batch demonstration procedure
that will be used to verify that the control device is operating
properly is required.
3. Periodic Reports
Periodic Reports are required to ensure that the standards continue
to be met and that control devices are operated and maintained
properly. Generally, Periodic Reports would be submitted semiannually,
however, quarterly reports must be submitted in some instances.
Periodic Reports specify periods when the values of monitored
parameters are above the maximum or below the minimum established level
specified in the Notification of Compliance Status or operating permit.
For continuously monitored parameters, records must be kept of the
parameter value recorded once every 15 minutes. If a parameter is
monitored more frequently than once every 15 minutes, the 15-minute
averages may be kept instead of the individual values. This requirement
ensures that there will be enough monitoring values recorded to be
representative of the monitoring period without requiring the affected
source to retain additional data.
For some types of emission points and controls, periodic (e.g.,
monthly, quarterly, or annual) inspections or measurements are required
instead of continuous monitoring. For control devices receiving less
than 1 ton per year of uncontrolled emissions, continuous monitoring is
not required. Instead, a daily demonstration that the control device is
working is required. Records that such inspections, measurements, or
demonstrations were done must be kept; but results are included in
Periodic Reports only if a problem is found. This requirement is
designed to minimize the recordkeeping and reporting burden of the
proposed rule.
4. Other Reports
There are a very limited number of other reports. Where possible,
the proposed rule is structured to allow information to be reported in
the semiannual (or quarterly) Periodic Reports. However, in a few
cases, it is necessary for the affected source to provide information
to the regulatory authority shortly before or after a specific event.
For example, notification prior to internal storage vessel inspections
is required to allow the regulatory authority to have an observer
present. Certain notifications and reports required by subpart A of
part 63 must also be submitted.
5. Possible Alternative Recordkeeping Requirements
The proposed rule requires affected sources to keep readily
accessible records of monitored parameters. For those control devices
that must be monitored continuously, records which include at least one
monitored value for every 15 minutes of operation are considered
sufficient. These monitoring records must be maintained for 5 years.
However, there are some existing monitoring systems that might not
satisfy these requirements. To comply
[[Page 68852]]
with the proposed rule, affected sources have the flexibility to
request approval for the use of alternative recordkeeping systems under
the proposed rule or under provisions of subpart A of part 63.
VI. Solicitation of Comments
The EPA welcomes comments from interested persons on any aspect of
the proposed rule, and on any statement in the preamble or the
referenced supporting documents. The proposed rule was developed on the
basis of information available. The EPA is specifically requesting
factual information that may support either the approach taken in the
proposed standards or an alternate approach. In order to receive proper
consideration, documentation or data should be provided.
Comments are specifically requested on several aspects of the
proposed rule. These topics, grouped under the headings ``Batch Process
Vents'' and ``Other Topics,'' are summarized below.
Batch Process Vents
Basis for the Percent Reduction for Batch Process Vent Standards
Industry representatives have expressed concern with the adequacy
of the batch process vent emissions and control device efficiency data
available to the EPA for this rulemaking, and they have also expressed
concern with how the available data have been used in developing a
standard for reactor batch process vents. The EPA is requesting comment
on these concerns and data to address this issue.
Specific concerns with the data available to the EPA that have been
expressed by industry representatives include the following. First, the
data made available to the EPA through the 1992 Information Collection
Request (ICR) responses are not based on emissions testing and are
largely engineering estimates. It is the EPA's impression that
emissions data provided in the 1992 ICR responses is sometimes an
annualization of emissions from a single batch. Second, the basis for
the control device efficiencies provided in the 1992 ICR responses are
not described or qualified, and these data are also not based on
testing and are largely engineering estimates. Industry representatives
felt that many of the higher percent reduction levels reported in the
1992 ICR responses would not be achievable over an extended period of
time and that the reported values were likely maximum efficiencies.
The primary concern expressed by the industry with how the data
were used by the EPA in setting a standard for reactor batch process
vents is that the available control device data, in large part,
represent maximum efficiencies, and the EPA used those values to set a
standard that must be averaged across the entire batch. More
specifically, the owners of the facility which serves as the basis for
the MACT floor for existing affected sources and subsequently the basis
for the standard (Georgia Pacific) have stated that they cannot support
the percent reduction value reported in the 1992 ICR response as being
achievable by their facility. At the time the 1992 ICR response was
prepared, no test data were available for this facility, and the
reported data were based on engineering estimates.
Regarding the alternative emission limit (i.e., kg of HAP per Mg of
product) that accompanies the percent reduction standard, industry
representatives stated that emissions per batch can vary for different
batches of product. Therefore, when annual emissions, based on
emissions from a single batch, are used to determine the alternative
emission limit, the basis for the alternative emission limits is
questionable.
While hearing these concerns, the EPA judged that the rulemaking
had to continue forward. The EPA used the best data available. It
should be noted that this data was collected through Section 114
surveys and was used only after several rounds of clarifying questions
to better understand the data and improve it whenever possible. The EPA
is very interested in any better data that can be provided by the
limited number of companies that have applied secondary controls and
will give it full consideration in developing the final standard.
If further data is provided, the EPA requests specifics on the
concerns and issues described above. The basis for compliance
demonstration is presented in the preamble and the proposed rule. Data
provided to address the concerns related to the percent reduction
standard should express control device performance on the same basis
that will be used for compliance demonstrations. For the alternative
standard, emissions data provided by industry should account for the
expected or typical annual production, thereby providing a more
representative estimate of annual emissions. The source of data and the
limitations on its use should be clearly described.
The EPA anticipates receiving data on this topic only from
facilities operated by 9 companies that are identified in docket item
number II-B-12, Docket Number A-92-19, as having applied secondary
controls. Because this solicitation of data is directed at 9 companies,
and not an entire industry, the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act do not apply.
Separate Treatment of Reactor and Non-Reactor Batch Process Vents
As defined in the proposed rule, reactor batch process vents are
batch process vents originating from a reactor. Non-reactor batch
process vents are batch process vents originating from a unit operation
other than a reactor, and include, but are not limited to, batch
process vents from filter presses, surge control vessels, bottoms
receivers, weigh tanks, and distillation systems. All facilities
reported the presence of reactor batch process vents. Although many
facilities did not report the presence of non-reactor batch process
vents, the EPA judged that all facilities had some number of these
types of batch process vents because these unit operations are
necessary to manufacture amino/phenolic resins. As described in Section
V of this preamble, the EPA chose not to include non-reactor batch
process vents with reactor batch process vents, primarily because
development of a MACT floor regulating both types of batch process
vents may not be representative of the control level at existing
sources for non-reactor batch process vents.
The EPA is requesting comment on treating reactor and non-reactor
batch process vents separately. Further, the EPA is requesting
additional data concerning the presence, emissions, and control status
of non-reactor batch process vents at amino/phenolic resin process
units.
Use of FTIR and Method PS-15
The proposed rule provides an alternative emission limit for
storage vessels, continuous process vents, reactor batch process vents,
and non-reactor batch process vents that allow an owner or operator to
vent these kinds of emissions points to a control device that
continuously achieves an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv of organic
HAP. The proposed rule requires that continuous compliance with this
alternative emission limit be demonstrated through the use of an FTIR
(Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy) instrument and Method PS-15
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The EPA is requesting comment on this
compliance demonstration procedure.
Methanol Emissions From Amino/Phenolic Resin Production
A concern has been raised by industry related to the possibility
that responses to the 1992 ICR did not include
[[Page 68853]]
emissions of methanol originating from the use of aqueous formaldehyde.
If emissions of methanol were not included, it is possible that the
alternative emission limits that accompany the percent reduction
standard for reactor batch process vents may not be representative of
actual emissions. The EPA is requesting data on this issue.
Use of Solvent-Based and Non-Solvent-Based Alternative Emission Limits
The EPA considered proposing two alternative emission limits to
accompany the percent reduction standards for reactor batch process
vents, but, as explained in Section V of this preamble, the available
data presented problems with this approach. The EPA is requesting
comment on how the use of two alternative emission limits (i.e., one
for solvent-based production and one for non-solvent-based production)
could be implemented and is requesting the data required to implement
such an approach.
Based on the available data, the EPA considered implementing the
two emission limit concept by declaring an affected source to be a
solvent-based producer or non-solvent-based producer based on the total
mass of product. Under the approach that was considered, if more than
50 percent of the product is solvent-based, the affected source would
be declared a solvent-based producer and would be required to meet the
percent reduction standard or the solvent-based alternative emission
limit. An alternative approach would be for an affected source to meet
the solvent-based emission limit whenever it is producing a solvent-
based resin and to meet the non-solvent-based emission limit for all
other production.
The EPA is requesting non-confidential data (i.e., emissions and
production data) that would allow the EPA to establish a solvent-based
and non-solvent-based alternative emission limit. In regard to the
alternative approach described above (i.e., meeting the solvent-based
emission limit when producing solvent-based resins and meeting the non-
solvent-based emission limit otherwise) the EPA is particularly
interested in receiving data that would distinguish emissions from the
production of solvent-based resins versus emissions from the production
of non-solvent-based resins.
Other Topics
Definitions of Amino and Phenolic Resin
The EPA is requesting comment on the definitions included in the
proposed rule for amino resin and for phenolic resin. [Note: while the
proposed rule includes an administrative action to combine the amino
and phenolic resin source categories into a single source category, the
EPA believes that separate definitions for the two types of resins are
required.] The EPA requests comments addressing whether or not products
commonly considered by the industry to be amino or phenolic resins are
included by the definitions and products commonly considered by the
industry not to be amino or phenolic resins are excluded by the
definitions.
Applicability Criteria Alternative for Storage Vessels
During the analysis of the MACT floor for storage vessels, the EPA
considered an alternative approach for developing the applicability
criteria (i.e., description of which storage vessels require control)
based on the approach used to develop storage vessel applicability
criteria under the Pesticides NESHAP. This alternative approach results
in the same control level requirement of 50 percent emission reduction
for storage vessels at existing affected sources. For storage vessels
at new affected sources, the control level would increase to 95 percent
emission reduction. For storage vessels at existing affected sources,
the alternative approach uses an uncontrolled emissions cutoff for the
applicability criteria, determined to be 812 Mg/yr. Therefore, storage
vessels at existing affected sources with uncontrolled emissions of 812
Mg/yr or greater would be required to apply controls. For storage
vessels at new affected sources, the alternative approach considers
storage vessel capacity and uncontrolled emissions. For storage vessels
at new affected sources, the alternative approach would require control
for storage vessels with capacities of 10,150 gallons or greater with
uncontrolled emissions of 222 lb/yr or greater.
The EPA is requesting comment on this alternative approach. The
alternative approach and the results described above are documented in
more detail in docket item II-B-13, available in Docket Number A-92-19.
Heat Exchange Systems
The EPA is requesting comment on the presence of heat exchange
systems in this industry. The EPA has found heat exchange systems to be
a potential source of emissions warranting controls. However, the EPA
does not wish to regulate a type of equipment that is not present in
the industry, and the EPA does not have adequate information to
determine whether or not heat exchange systems are present at amino/
phenolic resin process units.
VII. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
This section presents the air, non-air environmental (wastewater
and solid waste), energy, cost, and economic impacts resulting from the
control of organic HAP emissions under the proposed rule.
A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP
The proposed rule would affect amino/phenolic resin facilities that
are major sources in themselves, or that are located within a major
source. Based on available information, 40 amino/phenolic resins
facilities were judged to be major sources.
Impacts are presented relative to a baseline reflecting the level
of control in the absence of the rule. The current level of control was
well understood because emissions and control data were collected on
each facility included in the analysis. The estimation of impacts was
determined for existing facilities only. Impacts for new facilities
were not estimated because no new facilities are projected to be
constructed.
The impacts for existing sources were estimated by applying the
controls necessary to bring each facility into compliance with the
proposed standards. For a facility or emission point within a facility
already in compliance with the proposed standards, no impacts we
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.