National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyether Polyols Production

SUMMARY: On September 5, 1996 (61 FR 46906) and September 12, 1996 (61

FR 48208), the EPA promulgated the ``National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Group I Polymers and Resins,'' (40 CFR part

63, subpart U) and the ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants: Group IV Polymers and Resins,'' (40 CFR part 63, subpart

JJJ), respectively. In December 1996, petitions for review of the

September 1996 Polymers and Resins I and IV rules were filed in the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The

petitioners raised over 280 technical issues and concerns with the

drafting clarity of these rules. This action proposes correcting

amendments to these rules to address the petitioners' issues and any

other inconsistencies that were discovered during the review process.

In addition, on January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2722), amendments to the

hazardous organic National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP) (hereafter referred to as the ``HON'') which is

heavily referenced by both the Polymers and Resins I and IV NESHAP,

were promulgated. These proposed amendments will update cross-

references and other terminology, as necessitated by the HON

amendments, and will incorporate parallel changes to those made in the

HON, in sections of the Polymers and Resins I and IV NESHAP which were

originally modeled after the HON. In addition, the proposed amendments

to subpart U in this action apply to the Polyether Polyols Production

NESHAP (subpart PPP) insofar as subpart PPP cross-references

requirements found in subpart U.

DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept comments regarding this proposal

on or before May 10, 1999.

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

public hearing by March 24, 1999, a public hearing will be held in

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, beginning at 10 a.m. on April

8, 1999. Persons interested in attending the hearing should call Ms.

Marguerite Thweatt at (919) 541-5673 to verify that a hearing will be

held.

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral

testimony must contact EPA by March 24, 1999 by contacting Ms.

Marguerite Thweatt, Organic Chemicals Group (MD-13), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,

telephone number (919) 541-5673.

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

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),

Attention Docket Number A-92-44 (Group I Polymers and Resins) and/or

Docket Number A-92-45 (Group IV Polymers and Resins), Room M-1500, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy also be sent to the

contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Comments may also be submitted electronically by following the

instructions provided in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

Docket. Docket numbers A-92-44 and A-92-45, containing information

relevant to these proposed amendments, are available for public

inspection between 8 a.m. and 5:30 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. Alternatively, a docket

index, as well as individual items contained within the docket, may be

obtained by calling (202) 260-7548 or (202) 260-7549. The docket is

located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground

floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel, Organic

Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541-5608.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

The regulated category and entities affected by this action

include:

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

Category Examples of regulated entities

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

Industry..................... Butyl Rubber, Halobutyl Rubber,

Epichlorohydrin Elastomer, Ethylene

Propylene Rubber, Hypalon TM, Neoprene,

Nitrile Butadiene Rubber, Nitrile

Butadiene Latex, Polybutadiene Rubber,

Styrene-Butadiene Rubber or Latex,

Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Resin,

Styrene Acrylonitrile Resin, Methyl

Methacrylate Acrylonitrile Butadiene

Styrene Resin, Methyl Methacrylate

Butadiene Styrene Resin, Poly(ethylene

terephthalate) Resin, Polystyrene Resin,

and Nitrile Resin producers.

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers likely to be interested in the revisions to the

regulations affected by this action. To determine whether your facility

is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine all of the

applicability criteria in the promulgated versions of subpart U and JJJ

(61 FR 46906 and 61 FR 48208, respectively), as well as in the proposed

amendments to the applicability sections (Secs. 63.480 and 63.1310)

contained in this proposal. If you have any questions regarding the

applicability of these amendments to a particular entity, consult the

person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

These proposed amendments, the promulgated texts, and other

background information are available in Docket Numbers A-92-44 and A-

92-45 or by request from the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (see ADDRESSES). These documents can also be

accessed through the EPA web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. For

further information and general questions regarding the TTN, call Mr.

Hersch Rorex (919) 541-5637 or Mr. Phil Dickerson (919) 541-4814.

Electronic comments and data may be submitted by sending electronic

mail (e-

[[Page 11561]]

mail) to: [email protected]. Submit comments 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 Word

Perfect 5.1 or 6.1 or ACSII file format. Identify all comments and data

in electronic form by the docket numbers A-92-44 and/or A-92-45. No

Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through

electronic mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

The EPA solicits comment on the specific revisions to the Polymers

and Resins Group I and IV rule revisions that are described below and

proposed today. The EPA is not seeking comment on portions of the two

rules that the Agency is not currently proposing to change.

I. Background on Rules

On September 5, 1996 (61 FR 46906) and September 12, 1996 (61 FR

48208), the EPA issued the ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants: Group I Polymers and Resins,'' (40 CFR part 63, subpart

U) and the ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:

Group IV Polymers and Resins,'' (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJ),

respectively. On August 26, 1996 (61 FR 43698), just prior to the

promulgation of subparts U and JJJ, the EPA proposed amendments to the

hazardous organic NESHAP (HON), which subparts U and JJJ both reference

and were modeled after, due to similarities in Hazardous Air Pollutant

(HAP) emissions and emission controls at affected sources covered by

all three rules.

As a result, on November 25, 1996 (61 FR 59849), the EPA published

an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) informing the public of

the EPA's intent to propose amendments to both the Group I and Group IV

Polymers and Resins NESHAP as well. The amendments referred to in that

ANPR include the amendments proposed by today's action, which were

necessitated by the amendments to the HON, due to cross-reference

changes. Because subparts U and JJJ were both modeled after the HON,

the EPA determined that many of the amendments that had been made to

the HON would also be appropriate for subparts U and JJJ. The EPA has

already published several amendments to clarify various aspects of the

Group I and Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP, in part due to the HON

amendments, which were promulgated on January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2722).

Readers should see the following Federal Register notices for more

information: January 14, 1997 (62 FR 1835), which extended the

equipment leaks compliance date for both rules; June 6, 1997 (62 FR

30993), which extended the compliance date for equipment leaks at

poly(ethylene terephthalate) resin (PET) affected sources; July 15,

1997 (62 FR 37720), which made minor corrections and clarifications to

the rules; February 27, 1998 (63 FR 9944), which corrected the

effective date of subpart JJJ (Group IV Polymers and Resins) by

changing it to February 27, 1998; in keeping with sections 801 and 808

of the Congressional Review Act, changed the compliance dates for new

affected sources to February 27, 1998, and changed the compliance date

once again for the equipment leak requirements in subpart JJJ, to

February 27, 1998; and March 31, 1998 (63 FR 15312), which provided a

temporary compliance extension until February 27, 2001 for existing

affected sources producing poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) using the

continuous terephthalic acid (TPA) high viscosity multiple end finisher

process.

One of the main purposes of today's action is to incorporate the

concepts and new references related to the promulgated HON amendments

and to propose changes related to settlement negotiations with

industry. It is important to note that the provisions of subparts U and

JJJ that cross-reference the HON (or any other regulation) refer to the

most recent, promulgated versions of those rules. In a recent

rulemaking, on January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2722), the EPA promulgated

amendments to the HON, including amendments to portions of the HON that

subparts U and JJJ reference.

Those HON amendments that are incorporated by reference into

subparts U and JJJ are considered to apply to subpart U and JJJ

affected sources. In addition, should the EPA propose future amendments

to the HON or other regulations cross-referenced in subparts U and JJJ

(e.g., the NESHAP for Source Categories: General Provisions, 40 CFR

part 63, subpart A), the most recent, promulgated versions of those

rules will be considered to apply subpart U and JJJ affected sources

whenever subpart U and JJJ directly cross-reference those regulations.

Public comments should be submitted at the time of the proposal of any

such amendments, if owners or operators have concerns about how those

amendments may affect the application of subparts U and JJJ to their

sources.

On November 4, 1996 the Dow Chemical Company (``Dow'') filed

petitions for review of the promulgated Polymers and Resins I and IV

NESHAP in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit, The Dow Chemical Company v. EPA, 96-1417 and 96-1421 (D.C.

Cir.). Dow raised over 280 technical issues on the rules' structure and

applicability, including questions about the applicability of the HON

amendments to subparts U and JJJ. Issues were raised regarding details

of the technical requirements, drafting clarity, and structural errors

in the drafting of certain sections of the rules. In addition, on

December 6, 1996, the Union Carbide Corporation filed a petition for

review of the promulgated Polymers and Resins I NESHAP in the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Union Carbide

Corporation v. EPA, 96-1413 and Consolidated Cases (D.C. Cir.). Today's

proposed amendments address the issues raised by Dow on the promulgated

Polymers and Resins I and IV NESHAP, and the issues raised by Union

Carbide on the promulgated Polymers and Resins I NESHAP, and include

corrections and clarifications to ensure that these rules are

implemented as intended. Today's proposed amendments also provide some

new provisions that would reduce the burden associated with the

recordkeeping and reporting requirements of these rules. For example,

as proposed Secs. 63.506(a)(1) and (a)(2) and 63.1335(a)(1) and (a)(2)

allow records older than 6 months to be stored off-site, and no longer

require owners and operators to keep copies of reports that have

already been submitted to the EPA Regional Office. This last change is

being proposed so that owners and operators that have misplaced copies

of reports that have also been submitted to the EPA are not considered

to be in violation of the rules.

II. Regulatory Amendments

This section of this preamble will first present a general overview

of the types of changes that the EPA is proposing to make to subparts

JJJ and U. Following that overview, a section-by-section approach has

been taken, describing the EPA's proposed changes, down to the

subparagraph level, where deemed appropriate. Parallel sections in

subparts U and JJJ (e.g., Secs. 63.480 and 63.1310) are first addressed

together, and then proposed changes that are unique to one rule or the

other are described, for each section of the rules, as necessary.

[[Page 11562]]

A. Overview of Proposed Changes

1. HON Changes Directly Incorporated

As mentioned previously, on January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2722), the EPA

promulgated revisions to the HON rule. Those revisions to the HON made

significant changes to the requirements for process wastewater, heat

exchange systems, certain liquid streams in open systems within a

chemical manufacturing process unit, and maintenance wastewater, and

made minor edits to other sections of the rule. For those HON

provisions directly referenced in subparts U and JJJ (see Table 1), the

promulgated HON amendments also apply to affected Polymers and Resins I

and IV sources. The EPA has evaluated the HON amendments and has

determined, with the proposed exceptions noted in this action, that the

HON amendments are appropriate for Polymers and Resins I and IV

sources. The EPA therefore proposes that the HON amendments be

incorporated into the Polymers and Resins I and IV rules, with the

exceptions proposed in this notice. For more detailed rationale

regarding the HON amendments, see the preamble in the Federal Register

notice that proposed the HON amendments (61 FR 43698, August 26, 1996).

Table 1.--HON Sections Directly Referenced in Subparts U and JJJ

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

Description of Subpart U section that Subpart JJJ section

HON section referenced referenced provisions references HON that references HON

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

Secs. 63.101, 63.111, & 63.161...... Definitions............ Sec. 63.482(a)........ Sec. 63.1312(a)

Sec. 63.104......................... Heat Exchange Systems.. Sec. 63.502(k)........ Sec. 63.1328

Sec. 63.105......................... Maintenance Wastewater. Sec. 63.501........... Sec. 63.1330

Secs. 63.113-118.................... Process Vents.......... Sec. 63.485........... Sec. 63.1315

Secs. 63.119-123.................... Storage Vessels........ Sec. 63.484........... Sec. 63.1314

Secs. 63.131-149.................... Wastewater............. Sec. 63.501........... Sec. 63.1330

Sec. 63.150(g)(3), (g)(5), (h)(3), & Emissions Averaging Sec. 63.503(g)(3), Sec. 63.1332(g)(4),

(h)(5). provisions for storage (g)(5), (h)(3), & (g)(5), (h)(4), &

vessels & wastewater. (h)(5). (h)(5)

Secs. 63.160-182.................... Equipment Leaks........ Sec. 63.502(a)-(j).... Sec. 63.1331

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

2. Changes to P&R Sections That Were Modeled After the HON

For the same reason that, after thorough evaluation, the EPA had

originally chosen to model subparts U and JJJ after the HON (i.e., due

to the similarities in HAP emissions and emission controls amongst HON

affected sources and affected elastomers and thermoplastics sources;

see the proposal preambles for subparts U and JJJ, 60 FR 30801, 6/12/

95, and 60 FR 16090, 3/29/95, respectively), the EPA is proposing

amendments to subparts U and JJJ which will make parallel changes to

these rules based on the HON amendments.

3. Litigation-Based Changes

As was mentioned in the ``Background'' section of this preamble, on

November 4, 1996 the Dow Chemical Company filed petitions for review of

the promulgated Polymers and Resins I and IV NESHAP in the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, The Dow Chemical

Company v EPA, 96-1417 and 96-1421 (D.C. Cir.); and on December 6,

1996, the Union Carbide Corporation filed a petition for review of the

promulgated Polymers and Resins I NESHAP in the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit, Union Carbide Corporation v EPA,

96-1413 and Consolidated Cases (D.C. Cir.). Many of today's proposed

amendments address the technical issues and areas in need of

clarification that were identified during the litigation settlement

process.

4. Clarifyin and Cross-Referencing Changes

Many clarifying and cross-referencing changes were needed in

subparts U and JJJ, partly as a result of the previously discussed

amendments to the HON (because those amendments included both

terminology changes and changes in the location of specific

provisions).

In particular, the wastewater provisions in both subparts U and JJJ

required a substantial number of changes, in order to smoothly

incorporate the numerous changes to the wastewater provisions in the

HON. Similar changes were necessary in the other sections of the rule

that directly reference HON provisions (e.g., Secs. 63.485 and

63.1315).

In addition, a ``snowball'' effect inevitably occurred as other

provisions in subparts U and JJJ were amended, requiring additional

cross-reference changes and updates throughout both rules. For the most

part, these cross-reference changes need little or no explanation. A

few of the cross-reference changes are corrections of errors that

occurred at promulgation.

Additional changes are being proposed for the sake of clarity and

specificity throughout both rules. For example, in several places, the

promulgated language implied that inanimate objects (e.g., equipment)

would have to follow the rule provisions. In these proposed amendments,

the EPA has made an effort to correct this problem throughout both

rules, by always stating that it is the ``owner or operator'' (and not

the equipment) that must follow the rule provisions.

In the promulgated version of subpart U, in particular, there were

also several places in which an appendix to a 40 CFR part 60 or 63

subpart was referenced, without the complete citation being given. The

EPA proposes to correct all such instances in these amendments, as

well. Grammatical corrections (such as changing ``can'' to ``may,''

where appropriate) are also being proposed in these amendments. Other

minor, global changes include:

Changing the term ``control device'' to ``halogen

reduction device,'' where necessary.

Changing ``must'' to ``shall,'' for the sake of

consistency throughout both rules.

The following sections describe the proposed changes to each

section of subparts U and JJJ for which amendments are being

considered. Changes that are being made to both subparts U and JJJ are

described in unison.

B. Applicability-- Proposed Changes to Secs. 63.480 and 63.1310

1. Changes Common to Polymers and Resins I and IV

Sections 63.480(a)(1) through (4) and 63.1310(a)(1) through (4).

The EPA is proposing to restructure these paragraphs in order to

provide a better description of what constitutes an ``affected

source,'' an ``existing affected source,'' and a ``new affected

source.'' The EPA is proposing to add a sentence to the end of

Secs. 63.480(a)(3) and

[[Page 11563]]

63.1310(a)(3), clarifying that Secs. 63.480(a)(3)(i) and

63.1310(a)(3)(i) exclusively describe ``brand new'' production sites

(i.e., ``greenfield'' sites). If a source meets the criteria for a new

source under Secs. 63.480(a)(3)(ii) or (iii), or 63.1310(a)(3)(ii) or

(iii), or Secs. 63.480(i) or 63.1310(i) (which deal with changes or

additions at existing plant (i.e., industrial) sites), then

Secs. 63.480(a)(3)(i) and 63.1310(a)(3)(i) do not apply to that source.

The proposed new paragraphs at Secs. 63.480(a)(4) and 63.1310(a)(4)

replace the promulgated paragraph (a)(2), and list emission points and

equipment besides elastomer product process units (EPPU) and

thermoplastic product process units (TPPU) (e.g., compliance equipment

and waste management units) that make up the affected source, in an

attempt to clarify that these emission points are part of the affected

source in addition to the EPPU/TPPUs (which are clearly part of the

affected source.) A reference to the proposed equipment list in

Secs. 63.480(a)(4) or 63.1310(a)(4) has also been added to proposed

paragraphs Secs. 63.480(a)(2) and (3), and 63.1310(a)(2) and (3), and

in other places throughout subparts U and JJJ, where such a reference

was determined to be helpful. The EPA is also requesting comments on

the idea of incorporating similar changes into Secs. 63.1420(a) of

subpart PPP, the Polyether Polyols Production NESHAP.

Sections 63.480(a)(3)(i) and 63.1310(a)(3)(i). The proposed

language in Secs. 63.480(a)(3)(i) and 63.1310(a)(3)(i) clarify that the

phrase ``on which construction commenced after June 12, 1995 (or March

29, 1995, for subpart JJJ)'' applies to the entire major source, as

opposed to applying to ``each group of one or more EPPU (TPPU)''. The

fact that the equipment associated with each EPPU/TPPU is also

considered to be part of the affected source is also clarified in these

paragraphs.

In addition, the parenthetical ``i.e., a greenfield site'' is meant

to clarify that these paragraphs apply to sites at which no industrial

activity (demonstrated by an absence of any HAP emission points)

occurred prior to the proposal dates of the respective rules. The term

``emission point'' is defined in Secs. 63.482(b) and 63.1312(b).

Sections 63.480(a)(5) and 63.1310(a)(5). The EPA is proposing to

add paragraphs (Secs. 63.480(a)(5) and 63.1310(a)(5)) explicitly

stating that area sources and equipment at area sources are not

considered to be affected sources under subpart U or JJJ. Although this

was implied in the promulgated rule (by only listing EPPUs/TPPUs at

``major source'' plant sites as making up an affected source), the EPA

believes that an explicit statement of this nature helps clarify the

applicability of this rule.

Sections 63.480(b) and 63.1310(b). One of the many revisions to

subparts U and JJJ that are being proposed with today's action that

will reduce the recordkeeping burden on owners and operators is

contained in these paragraphs. The EPA is proposing to include an

additional alternative for EPPUs and TPPUs that do not use or

manufacture any organic HAP, which would provide those owners and

operators with the choice of either keeping records documenting the

fact that their source does not use or manufacture any organic HAP, or

of providing such information to the Administrator, at the

Administrator's request. The EPA is proposing to provide this

alternative, which is similar to that included in the HON amendments to

Sec. 63.103(e), because it was never the EPA's intent to impose an

ongoing recordkeeping requirement on sources that neither use nor

manufacture any organic HAP.

Sections 63.480(c) and 63.1310(c). The EPA is proposing to amend

these paragraphs to clarify which equipment is included within the

scope of these rules. The promulgated language in Secs. 63.480(c) and

63.1310(c) caused confusion and raised concerns over whether other

equipment or activities not listed were included in the affected

source.

The proposed revisions reflect the promulgated amendments to

Sec. 63.100(f) (after which they were originally modeled) and are

intended to improve rule clarity by reversing the drafting structure to

state that the listed items are included in the affected source, but

are not subject to the control requirements of the rule. Based on

discussions with industry, the EPA determined that reversing the

structure would make these paragraphs more understandable to the

regulated community and would reduce the chance of incorrect

interpretation. This proposed change is intended to ensure that certain

equipment that is part of a subpart U or JJJ affected source does not

become covered by future Section 112(j) rules.

Other proposed changes to Secs. 63.480(c) and 63.1310(c) include a

sentence clarifying that these excluded emission points are not subject

to subpart A of part 63 (the General Provisions). The proposed changes

to Secs. 63.480(c) and 63.1310(c) also add the following equipment to

the list of excluded emission points: equipment that does not contain

organic HAP, water from testing of deluge systems, and water from

testing of firefighting systems.

Sections 63.480(f) and 63.1310(f): Primary product and

applicability determination, and compliance options, for flexible

operation units. The EPA is proposing extensive changes to the primary

product determination and applicability criteria (i.e., for determining

whether a process unit is an EPPU, a TPPU, or neither) and to the

compliance options for flexible operation units in Secs. 63.480(f) and

63.1310(f). These changes are summarized by Figures 1 through 4 in this

document. However, Figures 1 through 4 are only intended to be

illustrative, as they are not comprehensive, and they do not carry any

regulatory authority. The proposed changes in Secs. 63.480 and 63.1310

are intended to address concerns raised in litigation after the

promulgation of subparts U and JJJ, with regard to flexible operation

units, in particular. Various scenarios were presented to the EPA that

would cause problems under the promulgated rule, such as ``contract

manufacturing'' situations in which an owner or operator could not

predict what might be produced at a source in the future. The EPA is

also requesting comments on the idea of incorporating similar changes

into Sec. 63.1420(e) of subpart PPP, the Polyether Polyols Production

NESHAP. The changes to Sec. 63.1420(e) would primarily parallel those

described below with regard to primary product determination and the

flexible operation unit provisions.

Sections 63.480(f) and 63.1310(f). The EPA is proposing to revise

these paragraphs so that they provide a more precise introduction to

the paragraphs that follow, and in order to reflect the addition of new

paragraphs as described below.

Sections 63.480(f)(1) and 63.1310(f)(1). The EPA is proposing to

combine promulgated paragraphs Secs. 63.480(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3)

and 63.1310(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) to create a single paragraph in

each subpart that addresses the initial determination of the primary

product. Promulgated paragraphs Secs. 63.480(f)(1) and 63.1310(f)(1)

appear as proposed paragraphs Secs. 63.480(f)(1)(i) and

63.1310(f)(1)(i); promulgated paragraphs Secs. 63.480(f)(2) and

Sec. 63.1310(f)(2) appear as proposed paragraphs

Secs. 63.480(f)(1)(iii) and 63.1310(f)(1)(iii); and promulgated

paragraphs Secs. 63.480(f)(3) and 63.1310(f)(3) appear as proposed

paragraphs Secs. 63.480(f)(1)(iv) and 63.1310(f)(1)(iv). The EPA is

also proposing to add introductory text to Secs. 63.480(f)(1) and

[[Page 11564]]

63.1310(f)(1), clarifying how the primary product of a process unit is

determined, and clarifying that process units that neither use nor

manufacture any organic HAP are only subject to Secs. 63.480(b) or

63.1310(b) (see discussion above). The proposed requirements under

Secs. 63.480(f)(1) and 63.1310(f)(1) are illustrated in Figure 1 and

Figure 2, which are flowcharts describing the proposed primary product/

applicability determination procedures for existing sources and new

sources, respectively.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 11565]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR99.000

[[Page 11566]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR99.001

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 11567]]

Sections 63.480(f)(1)(ii) and 63.1310(f)(1)(ii). A new set of

requirements is being proposed under these paragraphs, which would deal

with process units that are designed to produce two or more products at

the same time. This situation was not addressed at promulgation of

these rules. Under the proposed requirement, the primary product is the

product for which the process unit has the greatest annual design

capacity on a mass basis. If the process unit has the same annual

design capacity on a mass basis for two or more products, and at least

one of those products is an elastomer/thermoplastic product, then the

primary product for that process unit is an elastomer/thermoplastic

product.

Sections 63.480(f)(1)(iii) and 63.1310(f)(1)(iii). These proposed

paragraphs address primary product determination for flexible operation

units, which was previously addressed in promulgated paragraphs

Secs. 63.480(f)(2) and 63.1310(f)(2). The EPA is proposing to add

criteria for determining the primary product for an existing process

unit and for a new process unit (definitions for the terms ``existing

process unit'' and ``new process unit'' are also being proposed to be

added to Secs. 63.482(b) and 63.1312(b)). At promulgation, whether the

source was new or existing, the owner or operator had to determine

primary product on 5 years of ``expected production.'' However, in

recognition of the fact that it might be difficult for some owners or

operators to predict that far into the future, the proposed amendments

only require owners and operators to look one year into the future for

new process units. The EPA is also proposing to add a new provision at

Secs. 63.480(f)(2) and 63.1310(f)(2) for owners or operators of either

new or existing flexible operation units for which production cannot be

predicted over the required time period (see further discussion below

on Secs. 63.480(f)(2) and 63.1310(f)(2)).

Sections 63.480(f)(1)(iv) and 63.1310(f)(1)(iv). These proposed

paragraphs discuss the consequences of determining that a process

unit's primary product is an elastomer/thermoplastic product (as

previously addressed in promulgated paragraphs Secs. 63.480(f)(3) and

63.1310(f)(3)). In these paragraphs and in several other places

throughout the proposed amendments to subparts U and JJJ, the EPA has

qualified the term EPPU/TPPU with ``and associated equipment,'' which

is listed in Secs. 63.480(a)(4) (or 63.1310(a)(4)). This clarification

is being proposed because there was some confusion over the difference

between an affected source and an EPPU/TPPU after promulgation. In

addition, the EPA is proposing changes to this paragraph that remove

references to ``the future,'' because other provisions have been added

at Secs. 63.480(f)(3), (4), (9), and (10), and at 63.1310(f)(3), (4),

(9), and (10) that explain more explicitly how the designation of a

process unit as an EPPU/TPPU can be removed or re-instated.

Sections 63.480(f)(2) and 63.1310(f)(2). As mentioned earlier, the

EPA is proposing the addition of provisions for owners or operators

that are not able to predict future production to the extent that is

necessary to determine the primary product of a flexible operation unit

under Secs. 63.480(f)(1)(iii) and 63.1310(f)(1)(iii). Under these

proposed provisions, if the owner or operator cannot predict what

product will be the primary product of the flexible operation unit for

the designated time period, but can predict that the primary product

will not be an elastomer/thermoplastic product, the flexible operation

unit is designated as not being an EPPU/TPPU.

A more complex solution was necessary for owners and operators of

flexible operation units who can neither predict the primary product

for the designated time period, nor predict that the primary product

will not be an elastomer/thermoplastic product. The proposed provisions

under Secs. 63.480(f)(2)(ii) and 63.1310(f)(2)(ii) address this

situation. According to the proposed provisions in

Secs. 63.480(f)(2)(ii) and 63.1310(f)(2)(ii), in the situation

described above, a flexible operation unit that is an existing process

unit will be designated an EPPU/TPPU if an elastomer/thermoplastic

product has been produced for five percent (or greater) of the time

since March 9, 1999. If the flexible operation unit is a new process

unit, the flexible operation unit will be designated as an EPPU/TPPU if

the owner or operator anticipates that an elastomer/thermoplastic

product will be produced in that flexible operation unit at any time

during the first year of operation of the new process unit.

This concept, of making the primary product determination based on

whether or not an elastomer or thermoplastic has been produced at least

5 percent of the time since March 9, 1999 for an existing process unit

for which the owner or operator cannot otherwise determine the primary

product, or on whether or not the owner or operator anticipates

producing any elastomer or thermoplastic products during the first year

of production at a new process unit for which the owner or operator

cannot otherwise determine the primary product, is a new one. The EPA

is particularly interested in receiving public comments on this

concept, as a way of handling flexible operation units for which the

primary product determination is difficult to make.

Sections 63.480(f)(3) and 63.1310(f)(3). These proposed paragraphs,

and proposed paragraphs Secs. 63.480(f)(4) and 63.1310(f)(4), reflect

the concepts originally promulgated as paragraphs Secs. 63.480

(f)(4)(i) through (f)(4)(iii) and 63.1310 (f)(4)(i) and (f)(4)(iii).

The original concepts have been modified to improve clarity and to

complement other additions proposed for Secs. 63.480(f) and 63.1310(f).

In order to allow the flexibility that these proposed amendments are

offering, as far as whether or not the owner or operator designates

their flexible operation unit to be an EPPU/TPPU, the EPA is proposing

to add paragraphs that will specify procedures for an annual

applicability determination (beginning in September of the year 2001)

for non-EPPU's/non-TPPU's that have produced an elastomer/thermoplastic

product at any time in the preceding 5-year period or since the date

that the unit began production of any product, whichever is shorter.

Figure 3 depicts the proposed annual evaluation (after September 2001)

for owners or operators of non-EPPUs or non-TPPUs that have recently

made an elastomer or thermoplastic product, or are planning to make

elastomer or thermoplastic products in the near future. The proposed

method for performing this annual applicability determination requires

the owner or operator to calculate the percentage of total operating

time over which each product that was produced at the flexible

operation unit was produced during the applicable time period. If an

elastomer/thermoplastic product was the product with the highest

percentage of total operating time over that period, then the flexible

operation unit is designated as an EPPU/TPPU.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 11568]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR99.002

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 11569]]

Sections 63.480(f)(4) and 63.1310(f)(4). These proposed paragraphs,

and proposed paragraphs Secs. 63.480(f)(3) and 63.1310(f)(3), reflect

the concepts originally promulgated as paragraphs Secs. 63.480(f)(4)(i)

through (f)(4)(iii) and 63.1310(f)(4)(i) and (f)(4)(iii). The original

concepts have been modified to improve clarity and to complement other

additions proposed for Secs. 63.480(f) and 63.1310(f). These proposed

paragraphs will pertain to owners or operators who are anticipating

that their non-EPPU/TPPU process unit will begin manufacturing an

elastomer/thermoplastic product in the near future, if the process unit

has not produced any elastomer/thermoplastic products in the previous

five-year period. These paragraphs will also pertain to process units

for which the owner or operator has removed the EPPU/TPPU designation

in accordance with proposed Secs. 63.480(f)(9) or 63.1310(f)(9), but

for which the owner or operator now anticipates future production of an

elastomer/thermoplastic product. This proposed provision requires the

owner or operator, in the situations described above, to redetermine

the primary product for the process unit using the approach outlined in

Secs. 63.480(f)(1) and (f)(2) and 63.1310(f)(1) and (f)(2), except

that, for flexible operation units, the owner or operator must base the

prediction on the anticipated production for the five years (one year,

for new process units) following the date that production of an

elastomer/thermoplastic product will be initiated (instead of basing it

on the period following September 5th (September 12th for subpart JJJ)

of 1996, or on the period following the initiation of the production of

any product).

Sections 63.480(f)(5) and 63.1310(f)(5). This proposed paragraph

specifies that owners and operators of flexible operation units that

are EPPU/TPPU's shall comply with subpart U or JJJ (as appropriate) for

their primary product. Proposed Secs. 63.480(f)(5)(i) and (f)(5)(ii)

and 63.1310(f)(5)(i) and (f)(5)(ii) offer two exceptions to this

requirement: (1) if no organic HAP are used in the manufacture of a

particular product, only the provisions in Secs. 63.480(b) and

63.1310(b) must be followed during the production of that product; and

(2) if a product becomes subject to the National Emissions Standards

for Pharmaceuticals (subpart GGG of part 63), the owner or operator

need not comply with the provisions of this subpart during the

manufacture of that product.

Sections 63.480(f)(6) and 63.1310(f)(6). These proposed paragraphs

reflect the concepts originally promulgated as paragraphs

Secs. 63.480(f)(5)(i) and (f)(5)(ii) and 63.1310(f)(5)(i) and

(f)(5)(ii). For flexible operation units, the group status of each

emission point (except batch process vents) may be calculated in one of

two ways, according to the proposed amendments in Secs. 63.480(f)(6)

and 63.1310(f)(6). The owner or operator has the option of (1)

determining the group status for each emission point based on emission

point characteristics when the primary product is being produced, or

(2) determining the group status for each emission point based on

emission point characteristics when each product produced by the

flexible operation unit is being produced.

Sections 63.480(f)(7) and 63.1310(f)(7). The proposed provisions

added as Secs. 63.480(f)(7) and 63.1310(f)(7) state the requirements

for setting parameter monitoring levels for flexible operation units.

The proposed amendments allow owners and operators to either establish

separate parameter monitoring levels for each product, or to establish

a single parameter monitoring level (for each parameter required to be

monitored at each device subject to monitoring requirements) for all

products, depending on which option was chosen under Secs. 63.480(f)(6)

or 63.1310(f)(6), for conducting the group determination.

Sections 63.480(f)(8) and 63.1310(f)(8). The proposed provisions in

Secs. 63.480(f)(8) and 63.1310(f)(8) are largely similar to the

promulgated provisions in Secs. 63.480(f)(6) and 63.1310(f)(6), except

that one promulgated requirement (Secs. 63.480(f)(6)(ii)(B) and

63.1310(f)(6)(ii)(B)) was deleted. The deleted requirement was the

requirement that the operating time and/or production mass for each

product that was used to determine the primary product be reported in

the Notification of Compliance Status. The EPA decided that this

information was not needed in the Notification of Compliance Status;

however, records of this data should be kept in accordance with

Secs. 63.506(a) and 63.1335(a). In addition, proposed paragraphs

Secs. 63.480(f)(8)(ii)(C) and (f)(8)(ii)(D) and 63.1310(f)(8)(ii)(C)

and (f)(8)(ii)(D) were added, requiring the submittal of information

regarding the parameter monitoring levels established according to

Secs. 63.480(f)(7) and 63.1310(f)(7) in the Notification of Compliance

Status, because the EPA determined that this information would be

needed in the Notification of Compliance Status.

Sections 63.480(f)(9) and 63.1310(f)(9). In the promulgated rule,

procedures were provided for removing the EPPU/TPPU designation from a

process unit in which the owner or operator has ceased making all

elastomer/thermoplastic products, and in which the owner or operator

does not anticipate the production of an elastomer/thermoplastic

product in the future (in promulgated Secs. 63.480(f)(3)(i) and

63.1310(f)(3)(i)). These provisions have been rewritten for clarity and

moved to Secs. 63.480(f)(9) and 63.1310(f)(9) in the proposed

amendments.

Sections 63.480(f)(10) and 63.1310(f)(10). Because 40 CFR part 63

standards are developed using industry-specific considerations, the

regulations often contain requirements tailored specifically to the

particular processes used in the regulated industry. The primary

product applicability approach is one used in many MACT standards to

ensure that the process unit is only subject to one MACT standard, and

that the standard to which it is subject is the one for the product

that is produced in the process unit most of the time. If the

production pattern changes and the process unit begins producing

another product for the majority of the time, and the new primary

product is subject to another MACT standard, the EPA believes it is

appropriate that the unit be subject to the other MACT standard, rather

than being subject to subpart U or JJJ.

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to add Secs. 63.480(f)(10) and

63.1310(f)(10), which require the owner or operator to conduct a

redetermination of applicability of these rules to a flexible operation

unit ``whenever changes in production occur that could reasonably be

expected to change the primary product'' from an elastomer or

thermoplastic product to a product that would make the process unit

subject to another subpart of part 63. Figure 4 illustrates the

redetermination process for EPPUs or TPPUs that have made ``changes in

production * * * that could reasonably be expected to change the

primary product.''

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 11570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR99.003

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 11571]]

This redetermination of applicability is based on the ``primary

product'' of the flexible operation unit being the ``product with the

highest percentage of total operating time'' over the preceding five

years, or since the process unit began producing any product, whichever

is shorter. Given the length of time over which the primary product is

determined for flexible operation units, the EPA believes that owners

and operators will have ample time and opportunity to come into

compliance with other NESHAP, should they become subject to other

NESHAP as a result of the redetermination of primary product.

In addition, under the proposed provisions in

Secs. 63.480(f)(10)(iii) and 63.1310(f)(10)(iii), if a process unit (in

which a elastomer/thermoplastic product is no longer the primary

product, after a change in production) is subject to another subpart of

part 63, that process unit remains designated as an EPPU or TPPU until

the date upon which the process unit is required to be in compliance

with the provisions of the other subpart to which it is subject.

Sections 63.480(g) and (h) and 63.1310(g) and (h): Storage Vessel

Ownership and Recovery Operations Equipment Ownership. The EPA is

proposing clarifying changes to make the wording and structure of these

paragraphs parallel, because the EPA believes that this will make the

provisions of each clearer and easier to follow. Specifically, the

proposed revisions would make the wording of Secs. 63.480(g)(6) and

(g)(8) and 63.1310(g)(6) and (g)(8); and Secs. 63.480(h)(6) and (h)(7)

and 63.1310(h)(6) and (h)(7) parallel, respectively. This change is

similar to the HON amendments to Sec. 63.100(g), (h), and (i).

In addition, one of the conditions under which an owner or operator

would have to re-determine the assignment of a particular storage

vessel has been removed. The rule no longer requires that an assignment

redetermination be performed whenever ``there is a change in the use of

the storage vessel that could reasonably be expected to change the

predominant use of that storage vessel.'' It is the EPA's position that

it is not necessary to require a storage vessel assignment

redetermination unless the storage vessel has begun receiving material

from (or sending material to) a process unit that was not included in

the initial determination, or has ceased to receive material from (or

send material to) a process unit that was included in the initial

determination. Unless one of the above-listed circumstances has

occurred, it is highly unlikely that the assignment of a storage vessel

to a particular process unit will have become inappropriate.

Sections 63.480(i) and 63.1310(i). The EPA is proposing a number of

changes in Secs. 63.480(i) and 63.1310(i). The most significant changes

clarify the requirements that apply to additions of entire process

units and individual emission points, and clarify the compliance dates

for newly subject process units or equipment. In addition, other

changes are being proposed to clarify what the EPA considers to be

``process changes,'' and to clarify the recordkeeping and reporting

requirements associated with a process change.

Sections 63.480(i)(1)(i) and (ii) and 63.1310(i)(1)(i) and (ii).

These revisions are being proposed because the promulgated drafting and

structure in Secs. 63.480(i) and 63.1310(i) caused confusion as to the

equipment that would be subject to the new source requirements if the

conditions in either Secs. 63.480(i)(1)(i) or (ii) or 63.1310(i)(1)(i)

or (ii) were met. Before discussing the specific changes, an

explanation is needed regarding a fundamental basis of these

provisions. It is not possible for a single affected source to be both

subject to new source requirements (for any portion of the affected

source) and to existing source requirements (for any other portion of

the affected source). An affected source must be either a new affected

source, with all of it's equipment subject to the new source

requirements, or it must be an existing affected source, with all of

it's equipment subject to the existing source requirements. The

proposed changes to Secs. 63.480(i)(1)(i) and (ii) and 63.1310(i)(1)(i)

and (ii) are intended to clarify this situation.

First, the EPA is proposing to amend these paragraphs to clarify

that a group of one or more newly added EPPU/TPPUs (making the same

primary product), including their associated equipment, constitute a

single ``addition'' to a plant site. In Secs. 63.480(i)(1)(i) and

63.1310(i)(1)(i), the proposed languages makes it clear that the group

of EPPU/TPPUs (and associated equipment) are a new affected source,

provided that the applicable criteria are met. The applicable criteria

consist of two separate ``sets'' of conditions, and one condition from

each set must be met in order for the group of EPPU/TPPUs and their

associated equipment to be considered a new source. The first set,

contained in paragraphs Secs. 63.480(i)(1)(i)(A) and (B) and

63.1310(i)(1)(i)(A) and (B), are related to the date of construction or

reconstruction. If the construction of the group of EPPU/TPPUs

commenced after June 12, 1995, then the condition in paragraph (A)

would be met. If a group of one or more process units was originally

constructed or reconstructed after June 12, 1995 (under subpart U) or

after March 29, 1995 (under subpart JJJ), and then later began the

production of an elastomer/thermoplastic product and became an EPPU/

TPPU, then the condition in paragraph (B) would be met. This is a

clarification from the promulgated requirements, which only addressed

the date of the construction of the ``addition.'' The only proposed

changes to the second set of criteria, which are contained in

paragraphs Secs. 63.480(i)(1)(i)(C) and (D) and 63.1310(i)(1)(i)(C) and

(D), are related to the clarification what constitutes an ``addition,''

as discussed above.

The proposed amendments to Secs. 63.480(i)(1)(ii) and

63.1310(i)(1)(ii) include the same changes described above for

Secs. 63.480(i)(1)(i) and 63.1310(i)(1)(i) related to the clarification

of the ``addition.'' In addition, a new provision is being added to

paragraphs Secs. 63.480(i)(1)(ii) and 63.1310(i)(1)(ii) to specify the

compliance date for a group of process units that have become EPPU/

TPPUs due to a change in production that has made an elastomer/

thermoplastic product the primary product of the process unit. In the

proposed paragraphs Secs. 63.480(f)(3) and 63.1310(f)(3), owners or

operators of flexible operation units that are not EPPUs or TPPUs, but

that continue to produce an elastomer/thermoplastic product are

required to annually conduct a primary product determination based on

historical production levels. If production has shifted such that an

elastomer/thermoplastic product has become the primary product of a

flexible operation unit, then the unit is designated an EPPU/TPPU and

proposed Secs. 63.480(f)(3)(iii) and 63.1310(f)(3)(iii) require that

the owner or operator notify the EPA of this re-designation within 45

days of making the determination. The new provisions in

Secs. 63.480(i)(1)(ii) and 63.1310(i)(1)(ii) specify that owners or

operators in the situation described above must be in compliance with

the existing source requirements within 6 months from the date of the

notification.

Sections 63.480(i)(2) and 63.1310(i)(2). Similar changes are being

proposed for these paragraphs as those described above for

Secs. 63.480(i)(1) and 63.1310(i)(1). In Secs. 63.480(i)(2)(i)(A) and

63.1310(i)(2)(i)(A), rather than referring to the definition of

``reconstruction'' in

[[Page 11572]]

subpart A, the proposed text refers to a newly proposed definition of

``reconstruction,'' in Secs. 63.482(b) and 63.1312(b). The EPA is also

proposing to clarify, in Secs. 63.480(i)(2)(ii) and 63.1310(i)(2)(ii),

that the compliance dates are July 31, 1997 for most equipment leaks

and September 5, 1999 for most other emission points under subpart U,

and are February 27, 1998 for most equipment leaks and September 12,

1999 for most other emission points under subpart JJJ. Please note

that, as mentioned earlier, the compliance date for equipment leaks at

PET affected sources was temporarily extended to no later than

September 12, 1999 (62 FR 30993, June 6, 1997). Specifying the

compliance dates in Secs. 63.480(i)(2)(ii) and 63.1310(i)(2)(ii)

eliminates the need for the promulgated paragraphs under

Secs. 63.480(i)(2)(iii) and 63.1310(i)(2)(iii). The EPA is proposing to

remove these paragraphs and their subparagraphs, which specify

requirements for submitting ``compliance schedules.'' The EPA believes

that the requirement to create and submit compliance schedules is not

necessary under subparts U and JJJ. Provided that the existing source

is in compliance with the applicable requirements in subpart U or JJJ

on the compliance date, the EPA has no need to know in advance how the

owner or operator foresees bringing the existing affected source into

compliance by the appropriate date. The burden is on the owner or

operator to have a compliance plan that will guarantee that their

source will be in compliance by the date given in subpart U or JJJ, for

a particular emission point.

Promulgated Secs. 63.480(i)(3) and 63.1310(i)(3). The EPA is

proposing to remove the promulgated paragraphs Secs. 63.480(i)(3) and

63.1310(i)(3), because it has been determined that Secs. 63.480(i)(1)

and (2) and 63.1310(i)(1) and (2) cover all possible scenarios (i.e.,

there is no way for a Group 2 emission point to become a Group 1

emission point without a process change or the addition of an EPPU/TPPU

or emission point to the source.)

Sections 63.480(i)(5) and 63.1310(i)(5). The EPA is proposing a

minor amendment to these paragraphs that would result in a decrease in

burden on owners and operators. In these proposed amendments, a change

in production capacity is only considered to be a ``process change'' if

the change is an increase in production capacity.

Sections 63.480(i)(6) and 63.1310(i)(6). The proposed addition of

these paragraphs will direct owners and operators to the newly proposed

reporting requirements in Secs. 63.506(e)(7)(v) and 63.1335(e)(7)(iv),

which apply to additions and process changes. For the sake of

completeness, the EPA is proposing to add an entire subparagraph

describing the reporting requirements that apply to owners and

operators as a result of both promulgated and proposed provisions in

Secs. 63.480(i)(1) and (i)(2) and 63.1310(i)(1) and (i)(2), at

Secs. 63.506(e)(7)(v) and 63.1335(e)(7)(iv), as will be discussed in

greater detail in the section of this preamble that discusses proposed

changes to Secs. 63.506 and 63.1335.

Sections 63.480(j)(1) through (4) and 63.1310(j)(1) through (4).

These proposed paragraphs contain the general operational requirements

for compliance during periods of start-up, shutdown, malfunction, or

non-operation of an affected source (or portion thereof). These

proposed paragraphs largely mirror the promulgated HON paragraphs

Sec. 63.102(a)(1) through (4), with three primary exceptions.

First, the term ``emission limitation'' (as described in Section

302(k) of the Act) replaces the term ``provision'' throughout these

proposed paragraphs. This proposed change addresses a concern on behalf

of industry regarding exactly what the term ``provision'' covered (or,

in other words, which regulatory requirements did not apply during

periods of start-up, shutdown, malfunction, or non-operation.) The

definition of ``emission limitation'' that is contained in section

302(k) of the Act is:

A requirement * * * which limits the quantity, rate, or

concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis,

including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance

of a source to assure continuous emission reduction and any design,

equipment, work practice, or operational standard promulgated under

the Act.

The EPA has determined that the term ``emission limitation,'' as

defined under section 302(k) of the Act, is sufficiently broad to

encompass any requirements that the owner or operator might need relief

from, during a period of start-up, shutdown, malfunction, or non-

operation.

Second, the fact that emission limitations do not apply during

periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction is clearly spelled out in

the proposed language in Secs. 63.480(j)(1) and 63.1310(j)(1). The

promulgated versions of subparts U and JJJ were not clear on this

point.

Finally, proposed Secs. 63.480(j)(3) and 63.1310(j)(3) clearly

state the requirements for operating emissions control equipment and

monitoring equipment during periods of start-up, shutdown, and

malfunction. The promulgated rules and the HON were silent on the issue

of monitoring during a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction, while these

proposed amendments provide direct guidance on the control requirements

and monitoring requirements during a period of start-up, shutdown, or

malfunction.

These proposed amendments to subparts U and JJJ depart from the

amended HON by specifically requiring monitoring during periods of

start-up, shutdown, and malfunction. It is the EPA's position that

requiring monitoring during these periods will provide the EPA with

more information concerning whether or not Start-up, Shutdown, and

Malfunction Plans were followed, and will provide the EPA with valuable

information for assessing the adequacy of a source's Start-up,

Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan for future situations.

The proposed paragraphs contain a provision allowing owners or

operators to turn off monitoring equipment during start-up, shutdowns,

or malfunctions, if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the

monitoring equipment would be damaged or destroyed during those

periods, as long as such a provision is included in the source's Start-

up, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan according to the procedures

specified in the proposed requirements in Secs. 63.506(b)(1),

63.1335(b)(1), 63.506(e)(3), and 63.1335(e)(3). The proposed procedures

in Secs. 63.506(b)(1) and 63.1335(b)(1) require that the owner or

operator first submit a Precompliance Report or ``supplement to a

Precompliance Report,'' demonstrating to the Administrator that the

monitoring system would be damaged or destroyed if not shut off during

a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction. This will allow the Administrator

to have the opportunity to object to the inclusion of such a provision

in the source's Start-up, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan, if such a

provision seems to be unwarranted or insufficiently supported in the

Precompliance Report or supplement to the Precompliance Report. Under

these proposed amendments, unless the Administrator objects to a

request submitted in the Precompliance Report (or a supplement to the

Precompliance Report) within 45 days of its receipt, that request will

be deemed ``approved.''

2. Changes Unique to Polymers and Resins I

Section 63.480(d). In these proposed amendments, paragraphs (d)(2)

and

[[Page 11573]]

(d)(3) in Sec. 63.480 have been removed. The EPA believes that the

provisions in Sec. 63.480(d)(3) are not applicable to subpart U

affected sources, because such facilities (i.e., solvent reclamation,

recovery, or recycling operations at hazardous waste treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities) are typically not co-located with

EPPU. Those provisions were inadvertently incorporated with other HON

provisions from Sec. 63.100(j) into Sec. 63.480(d) at promulgation. The

EPA is also proposing to remove paragraph (d)(2), due to the fact that

Sec. 63.480(b) and (c)(1) (as proposed) address EPPUs and emission

points not containing or using any organic HAP. With today's action,

the EPA is requesting comments on the proposed removal of

Sec. 63.480(d)(2) and (d)(3) from subpart U.

Section 63.480(e). The EPA is proposing to edit paragraph (e) in

Sec. 63.480, to replace the incorrect references to ``subpart V'' with

the correct references to subpart JJJ.

Proposed Sec. 63.480(i)(3) and (i)(4). The EPA is proposing to

amend the promulgated paragraph Sec. 63.480(i)(4) (as Sec. 63.480(i)(3)

and (i)(4)), to specifically spell out to which emission points each

applies (i.e., surge control vessels and bottoms receivers that become

subject to Sec. 63.170, or compressors that become subject to

Sec. 63.164). In Sec. 63.480(i)(4), the EPA is also proposing to

specifically refer to the compliance dates for compressors, as they are

laid out in Sec. 63.481(d).

3. Changes Unique to Polymers and Resins IV

Section 63.1310(e). The proposed language in this paragraph is

intended to clarify that if only some emission points from a unit

operation are regulated by another Maximum Achievable Control

Technology (MACT) standard, then those particular emission points will

remain subject to that other MACT standard. Therefore, instead of

discussing ``unit operations,'' the proposed language discusses

``emission points from unit operations,'' so that there is no confusion

over whether the emission points or the entire ``unit operation'' is

subject to that other MACT standard.

Section 63.1310(i)(2)(ii). The EPA is proposing to add a condition

to the list of circumstances that are considered to be ``process

changes'' under Sec. 63.1310(i)(2)(ii). The circumstance that the EPA

is proposing to add in these amendments is a change resulting in

baseline emissions from continuous process vents in the collection of

material recovery sections at an existing affected source producing PET

using a continuous dimethyl terephthalate process going from less than

or equal to 0.12 kg organic HAP per Mg of product to greater than 0.12

kg of organic HAP per Mg of product. This proposed change in emission

level is similar to changing from Group 2 to Group 1; it signifies that

the owner or operator is now required to apply controls, so the EPA

believes that adding this new condition to the list of circumstances

that are considered to be ``process changes'' is appropriate.

Section 63.1310(i)(3). The EPA is proposing to change subpart JJJ

so that surge control vessels and bottoms receivers are handled in the

same manner for subpart JJJ, subpart U, and the HON. The EPA is

proposing to consider surge control vessels and bottoms receivers to be

subject to the requirements of subpart H of the HON, instead of

considering them to be storage vessels and subject to the requirements

in subpart G of the HON, as was done at promulgation of subpart JJJ.

This proposed change would make subpart JJJ consistent with subpart U,

with regard to how it handles surge control vessels and bottoms

receivers, but it will not cause any change in the actual control

requirements for surge control vessels and bottoms receivers. As a

result, the EPA is proposing to add Sec. 63.1310(i)(3), and to make

other changes (to Sec. 63.1312, in particular) as discussed elsewhere

in this preamble.

Section 63.1310(i)(4). The EPA is proposing to clarify

Sec. 63.1310(i)(4) by referring specifically to compressors and by

referring to the compliance dates for compressors in Sec. 63.1311(d).

C. Compliance Dates and Relationship to Other Rules-- Proposed Changes

to Sec. 63.481 and 63.1311

1. Changes Common to Polymers and Resins I and IV

It is anticipated that final action on the changes being proposed

in today's document will occur shortly before the compliance dates for

the non-equipment leak provisions of both subparts U and JJJ, as

described in Sec. 63.481 and 63.1311. The EPA believes that the changes

proposed in today's action can generally be classified as changes to

improve clarity and to increase flexibility in the testing, monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping requirements in subparts U and JJJ. The

EPA does not believe that these changes will cause a change in the

compliance status of a facility. The EPA also does not believe that

these amendments will effect major decisions that must be made by an

owner or operator well in advance of the compliance date, such as

whether a process is subject to the rule, or whether controls are

required for an emission stream. Therefore, today's action does not

include a proposed extension of the September 1999 compliance dates for

existing sources.

However, while the EPA believes the proposed changes do not

necessitate additional compliance time, the Agency recognizes that the

possibility exists that there could be specific provisions in today's

proposed changes that might effect the compliance status of one or more

facilities. Nonetheless, the EPA is requesting comments on whether the

proposed changes could place owners and operators in jeopardy of not

being in compliance in September 1999, solely due to a proposed

regulatory change. The EPA requests that commenters provide information

on the additional time that they believe they would need, and the basis

for the requested additional time period. In addition, the commenter

should identify the specific rule change that is being requested and

provide actual examples of how the rule change could cause a facility

to be out of compliance when the September 1999 compliance date

arrives, or when the changes are promulgated, whichever occurs later.

Title of Sec. 63.481 and 63.1311. Because the Notification of

Compliance Status is the report in which compliance (or non-compliance)

is ultimately documented, the EPA has decided that it is not necessary

for owners or operators of affected sources to submit a compliance

schedule. For this reason, the EPA is proposing to remove the term

``compliance schedule'' throughout both rules (including the titles for

Sec. 63.481 and 63.1311), and to remove all requirements to report

information in a ``compliance schedule'' throughout both rules. The

titles of Sec. 63.481 and 63.1311 are proposed to change from

``Compliance schedule and relationship of this rule to existing

applicable rules,'' to ``Compliance dates and relationship of this rule

to existing applicable rules.''

Sections 63.481(d) and 63.1311(d). The EPA is proposing changes to

Secs. 63.481(d) and 63.1311(d) that will allow owners and operators to

request compliance extensions for equipment leaks in the same manner in

which they would request a compliance extension for any other emission

point. The promulgated version of Secs. 63.481(d) and 63.1311(d)

referred owners and operators to section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act (via

Sec. 63.182(a)(6) of subpart H) for instructions on how to request a

compliance extension for an equipment leak. The EPA found that the

requirements in Secs. 63.481(e) and 63.1311(e) satisfied the

requirements in

[[Page 11574]]

section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act; therefore, the EPA is proposing to

simplify subparts U and JJJ by providing the same requirements (those

in Secs. 63.481(e) and 63.1311(e)) for owners and operators requesting

a compliance extension for any emission point (i.e., for equipment

leaks or other emission points).

Sections 63.481(d)(2)(iv) and 63.1311(d)(2)(iv). The EPA is

proposing a clarifying edit to Secs. 63.481(d)(2)(iv) and

63.1311(d)(2)(iv), to ensure that owners and operators realize that

they only need to send their request for a compliance extension (for

compressors) to the appropriate U.S. EPA Regional Office.

Sections 63.481(e) and 63.1311(e): Request for Compliance

Extension. The EPA is proposing to amend Secs. 63.481(e) and 63.1311(e)

to allow requests for compliance extensions to be submitted in a

separate submittal (as opposed to only in either the operating permit

application or the Precompliance Report), and to allow requests for

extensions to be made up until 120 days prior to the applicable

compliance dates (at promulgation, the request had to be made one year

in advance of the compliance date--i.e., when the Precompliance Report

was due).

Furthermore, Secs. 63.481(e)(3) and 63.1311(e)(3) are new

paragraphs that are modeled after Sec. 63.151(a)(6)(iv), proposing to

allow a request for a compliance extension later than 120 days prior to

the compliance date, under special circumstances. An example of such

circumstances (``beyond reasonable control of the owner or operator'')

would be if the owner or operator signed a contract to have control

equipment installed by a date much earlier than the compliance date,

but the contractor responsible for providing or installing that control

equipment was not able to deliver the equipment and/or install it

before the compliance date. The proposed addition of Secs. 63.481(e)(3)

and 63.1311(e)(3) would allow the owner or operator to request a

compliance extension during the last 120 days before the compliance

date, if the need arose during that 120 day period and if the need was

due to circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the owner or

operator. Submission of a compliance extension request would not,

however, stay the applicability of subparts U and JJJ to the applicant

during the pendency of the request.

The EPA is proposing these revisions to be consistent with the HON

amendments to Sec. 63.151(a)(6), and in recognition of the fact that

review of most requests for compliance extensions can be completed

within 120 days, and it is unlikely that the EPA would need 12 months

to complete the review of such a request. In addition, the EPA is

proposing to allow submittal of extension requests up to the compliance

date in recognition that unforeseen difficulties, such as construction

or operational difficulties can arise in the last moments of compliance

planning. The proposed provisions in Secs. 63.481(e)(3) and

63.1311(e)(3) are also considered necessary because it is unlikely that

these proposed revisions will be final more than 120 days prior to the

September 1999 compliance dates for certain control requirements. Any

changes in the wording or requirements of the final rule could affect

compliance planning for a source. Therefore, the EPA believes that it

is necessary to provide owners and operators with some opportunity to

apply for compliance extensions after the date that is 120 days prior

to the compliance date.

Sections 63.481(k) and 63.1311(m). In the promulgated rule

(Secs. 63.481 and 63.1311), the EPA attempted to address the problem of

overlapping requirements by specifying which provisions apply for each

of the known cases of overlapping rules. It has come to the EPA's

attention, however, that there was another broad category of

overlapping Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements

that were not addressed in the promulgated versions of subparts U and

JJJ. In today's amendments, the EPA is proposing provisions to allow

the use of certain RCRA-required monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting provisions to satisfy the corresponding requirements in

subparts U and JJJ. These proposed provisions would be added as

Secs. 63.481(k) and 63.1311(m).

Absent the proposed provisions, subparts U and JJJ would require

the owner or operator to comply with the applicable monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of subpart U or subpart JJJ, as

well as those from RCRA rules, in cases where the same control device

(e.g., an incinerator or adsorber) is subject to a RCRA rule and would

be used to comply with the requirements for the non-wastewater

provisions of subpart U or JJJ (through cross-reference to the HON

wastewater provisions, this overlap problem was not an issue for

wastewater streams at promulgation). Compliance with the applicable

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of subpart U or

JJJ as well as those in a RCRA rule would significantly increase the

cost of compliance demonstrations without providing a corresponding

environmental benefit. Therefore, to reduce this burden, the EPA is

proposing to allow an owner or operator to elect to use the monitoring,

recordkeeping, or reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts 260 through

272, instead of those otherwise required under subparts U and JJJ.

The EPA considers this proposed consolidation of overlapping

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to be appropriate

because the RCRA air rules and subparts U and JJJ have the same

objective and monitor similar operational characteristics of control

devices. In general, the RCRA requirements tend to require more

frequent monitoring, and the retention of more detailed information.

Therefore, it is possible to use the RCRA data and reports to

demonstrate compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements of subparts U and JJJ, for certain control

devices.

Sections 63.481(l) and 63.1311(n). The EPA is proposing to add a

paragraph at Secs. 63.481(l) and 63.1311(n) to address instances in

which requirements from other part 63 regulations overlap for the same

heat exchange system(s) or waste management unit(s) that are subject to

subpart U or JJJ. Under the proposed additions of Secs. 63.481(l) and

63.1311(n), compliance with subpart F (or another subpart of part 63

that requires compliance with Sec. 63.104) for heat exchange systems,

and/or compliance with subpart G (or another subpart of part 63 that

requires compliance with Secs. 63.132 through 63.147) for waste

management units, constitutes compliance with the heat exchange system

requirements and/or waste management unit requirements in subpart U or

JJJ.

2. Changes Unique to Polymers and Resins I

Section 63.481(d)(5) and (6). The EPA is proposing to change the

compliance date to September 5, 1999 (instead of September 6, 1999) in

both of these paragraphs so that they are consistent with other

provisions in subpart U (e.g., Sec. 63.480(i)(3)).

Section 63.481(j). The proposed addition of Sec. 63.481(j) mirrors

a provision that was promulgated in subpart JJJ (as Sec. 63.1311(k)).

This provision states that sources that were previously subject to 40

CFR part 60, subpart VV and that become subject to subpart JJJ will no

longer be subject to the provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV on

the compliance dates specified in subpart JJJ . A similar provision

should have also been

[[Page 11575]]

included in subpart U at promulgation, but was overlooked at that time;

therefore, the EPA proposes adding this provision at Sec. 63.481(j).

3. Changes Unique to Polymers and Resins IV

Section 63.1311(d)(3) and (d)(5). The EPA is proposing to change

the compliance date in Sec. 63.1311(d)(3) from September 14, 1998 to

September 12, 1998, and to change the compliance date in

Sec. 63.1311(d)(5) from September 13, 1999 to September 12, 1999 in

order to be consistent with other provisions throughout subpart JJJ

(e.g., Sec. 63.1311(b) and (c)).

Section 63.1311(i)(3). The EPA is proposing to add this paragraph

to clarify the intent of the promulgated rule that existing affected

sources producing PET that are subject to and complying with the

ethylene glycol concentration limits from the Polymers Manufacturing

NSPS (i.e., 40 CFR 60.562-1(c)(1)(ii)(B) or 60.562-1(c)(2)(ii)(B))

shall continue to comply with those requirements, and not the

requirements of subpart JJJ.

D. Definitions--Proposed Changes to Secs. 63.482 and 63.1312

1. Changes Common to Polymers and Resins I and IV

In the definition section of subparts U and JJJ, several changes

were necessitated as a result of changes to the HON definitions that

they cross-referenced. Paragraphs Secs. 63.482(a) and 63.1312(a)

contain a list of terms for which definitions are ``borrowed'' from

other part 63 subparts; specifically subpart A (General Provisions) and

subparts F, G, and H (HON). Many of the referenced HON definitions

include references to specific HON sections or to HON tables. The EPA

has concluded that this situation could cause confusion when those

definitions are applied to subparts U and JJJ. Therefore, the EPA has

removed several terms from the lists in Secs. 63.482(a) and 63.1312(a)

and has defined them in Secs. 63.482(b) and 63.1312(b). This proposed

change is intended to clarify the applicability of the definitions to

subpart U and JJJ affected sources, and the EPA does not intend for any

of the newly proposed definitions to change the meaning of the terms

that are being defined in Secs. 63.482(b) and 63.1312(b), instead of

cross-referenced through Secs. 63.482(a) and 63.1312(a). Examples of

such terms include ``maximum true vapor pressure'', ``flexible

operation unit,'' and ``continuous record.''

In addition, the EPA determined that references to several terms

were not needed because these terms are not used in subparts U and/or

JJJ. The EPA is also proposing to remove these terms from the list in

Secs. 63.482(a) and 63.1312(a). Examples include ``reference control

technology for process vents'' and ``fixed roof.'' Also, due to changes

in the HON, the EPA is proposing to remove several terms that were

referenced at promulgation. For example, the promulgated HON amendments

no longer contain a definition of the term ``point of generation,''

which was cross-referenced by Secs. 63.482(a) and 63.1312(a) at

promulgation of subparts U and JJJ. Finally, the EPA is proposing to

remove cross-references to certain subpart A and HON definitions, and

to instead provide definitions that are specific to subpart U and/or

JJJ, to improve clarity in subparts U and JJJ. Every definition

discussed below represents a proposed change from the promulgated

rules.

Aggregate batch vent stream. In this definition, the EPA proposes

to remove the last phrase (``before being routed to a control device

that is in continuous operation'') to remove any implication that the

control device defines the vent stream. In addition, the EPA is

proposing to add the concept of hard-piping or otherwise connecting

batch process vents together (to create continuous flow) to the

definition of an aggregate batch vent stream.

Annual Average Batch Vent Concentration. The EPA is proposing to

add a definition for this term for the sake of specificity in the rule,

and to distinguish it from the term ``annual average concentration,''

which applies to concentrations in wastewater streams. The newly

proposed term (``annual average batch vent concentration'') is used

only with regard to batch vents, whereas the promulgated term ``annual

average concentration'' was used in reference to both batch vents and

wastewater streams. This proposed separation of terms should reduce the

confusion caused by using the same term for both situations in the

promulgated rules.

Annual Average Batch Vent Flow Rate. The EPA is proposing to

include two separate definitions for ``annual average flow rate,'' and

``annual average batch vent flow rate,'' to minimize confusion between

the applicability of the two terms to process wastewater (for which the

term ``annual average flow rate'' is used) as opposed to batch process

vent streams (for which the term ``annual average batch vent flow

rate'' is used).

``Annual Average Concentration'' and ``Annual Average Flow Rate''.

The EPA is proposing to add definitions for these terms, and to remove

these terms (which were listed as being defined in Sec. 63.111 of

subpart F) from the list of cross-referenced definitions in the

promulgated versions of subparts U and JJJ. The newly proposed

definitions of these terms in Secs. 63.482(b) and 63.1312(b) point to

the HON requirements, but remind owners and operators to apply the

exceptions listed in Secs. 63.501 and 63.1330 to the wastewater

provisions in the HON.

``Average Batch Vent Concentration''. The addition of this

definition is being proposed because it became apparent that terms such

as ``average batch concentration'' and ``average concentration'' were

used inconsistently throughout the rules. In today's proposed

amendments, the EPA has eliminated the use of the terms ``average batch

concentration'' and ``average concentration'' throughout subparts U and

JJJ, and has replaced those terms with the more specific term ``average

batch vent concentration'' throughout both proposed rules.

``Average Batch Vent Flow Rate''. The EPA is proposing to define

this term both for the sake of accuracy and specificity in these rules,

and in order to distinguish it from the term ``average flow rate,''

which is not used in subpart U or JJJ, but is used in the wastewater

provisions in the HON, which these subparts reference. ``Average flow

rate'' is defined in Sec. 63.111 of subpart G.

``Batch Cycle Limitation''. The EPA is proposing to remove the

whole concept of the ``batch cycle limitation'' (per se) and replace it

with a ``batch mass input limitation.'' Therefore, the EPA is proposing

to remove this definition from subparts U and JJJ. See Section II.I of

this notice for more details regarding the proposed change to a batch

mass input limitation.

``Batch Front-end Process Vent'' and ``Batch Process Vent''. The

EPA is proposing several changes to these definitions. The first is to

replace the term ``point of emission'' with the term ``process vent''

throughout the definitions of ``batch front-end process vent'' and

``batch process vent,'' because the only emission points that are

considered to be batch front-end process vents or batch process vents

are process vents. The second proposed change to these definitions is

to restructure them so that it is clear that if a process vent has less

than 225 kilograms per year (kg/yr) of organic HAP emissions, then that

process vent is not a batch process vent. Finally, the EPA is proposing

to edit these definitions to add specific references to where and how

the annual organic HAP emissions are measured to determine whether or

not at least 225

[[Page 11576]]

kg/yr are being emitted from the process vent. Similar changes are also

being proposed in the definitions of ``Group 1 Batch Front-end Process

Vent'' and ``Group 1 Batch Process Vent,'' in subparts U and JJJ,

respectively, as described in more detail below.

``Batch Mass Input Limitation''. This definition was added as a

result of the proposed change discussed under Section II.I of this

notice, which would replace the batch cycle limitation concept with the

batch mass input limitation concept (i.e., the units used in the

limitation are being proposed to be changed from ``number of cycles''

to ``mass input'').

``Batch Mode,'' ``Batch Front-end Process,'' ``Batch Process

Vent,'' ``Batch Process,'' and ``Batch Unit Operation''. The new

definition for ``batch mode'' is part of a set of proposed changes to

the definitions of ``batch process,'' ``batch front-end process,'' and

``batch unit operation.'' It has been suggested that the promulgation

definitions of batch front-end process vent/batch process vent, batch

process, and batch unit operation, and continuous process, continuous

process vent, and continuous unit operation caused confusion. In

considering the intent and usage of these terms, the EPA has decided to

propose changes to these definitions. First, for the production of some

thermoplastic products, an entire process unit must be classified as

``batch'' or ``continuous,'' because some subcategories (and the

resulting control requirements) were established on this basis. For

purposes of establishing a process unit as either ``batch'' or

``continuous,'' the terms ``batch process'' and ``continuous process''

are used. The definitions of those terms classify the process unit as

``batch'' or ``continuous'' based on whether the reactor(s) in the

process unit are operated in a ``batch mode'' or ``continuous mode''

(the EPA is also proposing to replace the terms ``batch process mode''

and ``continuous process mode'' with the terms ``batch mode'' and

``continuous mode'' in these amendments).

However, the EPA intended, and continues to intend, that a process

vent be classified as ``continuous'' or ``batch'' based on the unit

operation from which the emissions originate. It is possible that in a

process where the reactor is operated in a batch mode (thus meaning the

entire process is operated as a ``batch process''), subsequent unit

operations could be continuous. In fact, in the elastomer and

thermoplastic industries, it is common for the reactors to be batch and

the finished unit operations (e.g., dryers) to be continuous.

Therefore, within a batch process, there would be some batch process

vents (e.g., reactor vents) and some continuous process vents (e.g.,

dryer vents).

In an attempt to clarify this situation, the EPA is proposing to

add and amend related definitions. The foundation for the proposed

concepts is the newly added definitions of ``batch mode'' and

``continuous mode,'' which describe operational characteristics of

these two ``modes.'' The EPA is proposing to modify the definitions of

``batch unit operation'' and ``continuous unit operation,'' basing the

definitions on whether the unit operation is operated in a batch (or

continuous) mode. This is consistent with the promulgated approach,

which classified process vents based on whether they originated at a

batch or continuous unit operation. Finally, the EPA is proposing to

modify the definitions of ``batch process'' and ``continuous process''

so that these definitions are based on whether the reactors are

operated in a batch or continuous mode. The EPA believes that these

proposed changes should eliminate the confusion between these terms.

``Combined Vent Stream''. The EPA is proposing to add this

definition to clarify what could be included in a ``combined vent

stream'' (e.g., a combination of two or more of the following types of

process vents: batch process vents, continuous process vents, and

aggregate batch vent streams), for the purposes of subparts U and JJJ.

``Compliance Schedule''. For the reasons explained more fully in

section B.1. of this notice, the EPA is proposing to remove this term

from the list of cross-referenced definitions contained in

Secs. 63.482(a) and 63.1312(a) because it is no longer cross-referenced

or used in subpart U or JJJ.

``Construction''. The EPA is proposing to add definitions of

``construction'' which are specific to subparts U and JJJ. In the newly

proposed definitions, the term ``stationary source'' (which was used in

the HON definition) is replaced with the term ``affected source,'' in

order to clarify that the newly proposed definitions only apply to the

construction of a subpart U or JJJ ``affected source.'' The proposed

definitions also make clear (as proposed under Secs. 63.480(i)(1) and

63.1310(i)(1)) that the addition of an EPPU/TPPU or group of EPPU/

TPPU's triggers the definition of ``construction'' when the

``addition'' of the EPPU/TPPU is the result of a change in primary

product (causing a formerly non-elastomer/non-thermoplastic product

process unit to become an EPPU/TPPU), if the other requirements listed

in Secs. 63.480(i)(1) and 63.1310(i)(1) are met.

``Continuous Mode,'' ``Continuous Front-end Process Vent,''

``Continuous Process Vent,'' ``Continuous Process,'' and ``Continuous

Unit Operation''. The proposed changes to these definitions mirror

those being proposed for the definitions of ``batch mode,'' ``batch

front-end process vent'', ``batch process vent'', ``batch process,''

and ``batch unit operation.'' An explanation for those proposed changes

is given above, under the subsection entitled ``Batch Mode; Batch

Front-end Process; Batch Process Vent; Batch Process; and Batch Unit

Operation.'' However, other unrelated changes were also made to these

definitions, as described in other parts of this section, including

under ``Changes Unique to Polymers and Resins I,'' and ``Changes Unique

to Polymers and Resins IV.''

``Continuous Record'' and ``Continuous Recorder''. The EPA has

determined that it was incorrect to merely cross-reference the

definitions of these two terms in Sec. 63.111, and is proposing to add

these two definitions to subparts U and JJJ by modelling the new

definitions after the HON definitions, but substituting the appropriate

references to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in subparts

U and JJJ for the HON references used in the definitions in

Sec. 63.111.

``Duct Work''. In Secs. 63.482(a) and 63.1312(a), the EPA is

proposing to add a cross-reference to the definition of the term ``duct

work'' in the HON (Sec. 63.161) because the EPA is also proposing to

use this term as a clarifying measure in the definitions of EPPU and

TPPU (see explanations for changes to those definitions in this

section).

``Emission Limitation''. Due to some ambiguity in the distinction

in meaning between the terms ``provisions,'' ``emission limitations,''

and ``emission standards,'' the EPA is proposing to clearly define what

is meant when these rules refer to an ``emission limitation,'' by

cross-referencing the definition of that term in Section 302(k) of the

Clean Air Act (Act). The Act defines an emission limitation as:

``a requirement * * * which limits quantity, rate, or concentration

of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any

requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to

assure continuous emission reduction and any design, equipment, work

practice or operational standard promulgated under this Act.''--

Section 302(k).

The EPA believes that this definition encompasses percent HAP reduction

requirements, outlet concentration

[[Page 11577]]

requirements, compliance options that specify the use of a flare,

temperature requirements for condensers, and a variety of other

provisions intended to reduce emissions, including leak detection and

repair (LDAR) programs for the control of emissions from equipment

leaks.

Because section 112(h)(1) draws a distinction between the use of

the term ``emission standard'' and the use of the term ``emission

limitation,'' the EPA decided it would be best to specifically refer to

the broader term (defined in Section 302(k) of the Act), especially due

to the manner in which that term is used in the proposed revisions to

Secs. 63.480(j) and 63.1310(j).

``Emission Point''. The EPA is proposing a correction to the

definition of ``emission point,'' by specifying that ``waste management

units,'' rather than each ``wastewater streams'' are emission points.

As a result of the HON amendments, ``equipment subject to Sec. 63.149''

has also been added to the list of emission points described in this

definition.

``Equipment''. At promulgation of subparts U and JJJ, the

definition of ``equipment'' in Sec. 63.161 was cross-referenced.

However, it came to the EPA's attention that unilaterally cross-

referencing that definition was problematic, in that the definition of

``equipment'' in Sec. 63.161 was not appropriate for non-equipment leak

components. The definition of ``equipment'' in Sec. 63.161 applies

uniquely to equipment leak components, described for the purposes of

subpart H. For that reason, rather than cross-referencing the

definition in Sec. 63.161, the EPA is proposing to add definitions for

``equipment'' to both subparts U and JJJ, to define the term

``equipment'' for specific use with the equipment leak provisions in

subparts U and JJJ.

``Existing Affected Source'' and ``New Affected Source''. The EPA

is proposing to add definitions for the terms ``existing affected

source'' and ``new affected source'' that refer to the appropriate

criteria in Secs. 63.480(a) and 63.1310(a).

``Existing Process Unit'' and ``New Process Unit''. The proposed

definitions of ``existing affected source'' and ``new affected source''

are not appropriate to use in some parts of Secs. 63.480(f) and

63.1310(f), because, at the time that an owner or operator is

determining whether or not a process unit is subject to subpart U or

subpart JJJ, it is not yet part of an ``affected source.'' Therefore,

the proposed definitions for ``existing process unit'' and ``new

process unit'' mirror the definitions for ``existing affected source''

and ``new affected source,'' except that the proposed definitions apply

to process units rather than entire sources.

``Flexible Operation Unit''. The EPA is proposing to add a

definition for this term to both subparts U and JJJ, instead of cross-

referencing the definition in Sec. 63.101 (as was done at

promulgation), because the HON definition of ``flexible operation

unit'' refers to ``chemical manufacturing process units.'' The proposed

definitions to be added to subparts U and JJJ are modeled after the HON

definition of ``flexible operation unit,'' but discuss ``process

units'' instead of ``chemical manufacturing process units.''

``Group 1 Batch Front-end Process Vent'' and ``Group 1 Batch

Process Vent''. The EPA is proposing to amend these definitions in

order to clarify how and where the annual organic HAP emissions and

annual average batch vent flow rate are determined.

``Group 1 Wastewater Stream''. The proposed amendments to this

definition reflect the amendments promulgated for the definition of

``Group 1 wastewater stream'' in Sec. 63.111. The EPA is also proposing

to clarify that the wastewater streams are ``from'' (not ``at'') an

existing or new affected source, so that wastewater streams that are

from a non-thermoplastic or non-elastomer facility, but that flow

across property belonging to an affected source without being changed

or added to in any way, are not necessarily considered to be Group 1

wastewater streams under subparts U and JJJ. Other proposed changes

include a reference to the Group 1 criteria in the HON (Sec. 63.132(c))

and references to the organic HAP tables in subpart U and subpart JJJ,

respectively, and to Sec. 63.501(a)(10) for subpart U and

Sec. 63.1330(b)(8) for subpart JJJ.

``Hard-piping''. In Secs. 63.482(a) and 63.1312(a), the EPA is

proposing to add a cross-reference to the definition of this term in

the HON (Sec. 63.111) because the EPA is also proposing to use this

term as a clarifying measure in the definitions of EPPU and TPPU (see

explanations for changes to those definitions in this section).

``Highest-HAP Recipe''. The EPA is proposing to add this definition

to both subparts U and JJJ in essence to replace the concept of

``worst-case HAP emitting product'' which was promulgated in both

rules. The concept of ``highest-HAP recipe'' is much more

straightforward, and the product meeting the definition of ``highest-

HAP recipe'' is more easily determined than the ``worst-case HAP

emitting product.'' The explanation of the proposed amendments to the

batch process vent group determination procedures in Section II.I of

this notice provides more detail on the rationale behind this change.

``Initial Start-up''. The EPA is proposing to add a definition for

``initial start-up'' that mirrors the definition in Sec. 63.101, except

that initial start-up is triggered by the first time that an elastomer

or thermoplastic product is produced in the unit or equipment, rather

than by the first time the unit begins production or the equipment is

put into operation for any product.

``Maintenance Wastewater''. The EPA is proposing to add a

definition for ``maintenance wastewater'' to subpart U, and to amend

the promulgated definition of ``maintenance wastewater'' in subpart

JJJ, so that both definitions mirror the HON definition for this term

in Sec. 63.101, with a special provision stating that the generation of

wastewater from the routine rinsing or washing of equipment in batch

operation between batches is not maintenance wastewater, but is

considered to be process wastewater, for the purposes of subparts U and

JJJ.

``Maximum True Vapor Pressure''. The EPA is proposing to remove

this definition from the list of cross-referenced definitions in

Secs. 63.482(a) and 63.1312(a), and to add a definition specific to

subparts U and JJJ, because, unlike the HON, these rules do not cover

transfer operations.

``Month'' and ``Year''. The EPA is proposing to delete the

definitions of ``month'' and ``year'' from subpart U, and to delete the

definition of ``year'' from subpart JJJ, because these definitions

could be misleading, since the proposed paragraphs Secs. 63.481(m) and

63.1311(o) define all calendar periods. The EPA is also requesting

comments on the idea of removing these definitions from Sec. 63.1423(b)

of subpart PPP, the Polyether Polyols Production NESHAP.

``Multicomponent System''. The EPA is proposing to add a definition

for this term in order to clarify the term's meaning (due to its use in

Secs. 63.488(b) and 63.1323(b)), which is that a ``multicomponent

system'' is a stream whose liquid and/or vapor contains more than one

compound.

``Net Positive Heating Value''. The EPA is proposing to add a

definition for ``net positive heating value,'' because this term is

used in the definition of ``recovery device.'' The proposed definition

explains that, as used in subparts U and JJJ, ``net positive heating

value'' is the difference between the heat value of the recovered

chemical stream and the minimum heat value required to ensure a stable

flame in a

[[Page 11578]]

combustion device. This difference must have a positive value when used

in the context of ``recovering chemicals for fuel value,'' which is one

of the distinguishing characteristics of a ``recovery device,'' as

defined in subparts U and JJJ. The proposed addition of a definition of

``net positive heating value'' is important because it helps

distinguish between recovery devices and devices that are not recovery

devices, insofar as the properties listed in subparts U and JJJ

describe a ``recovery device.''

``On-site''. The EPA is proposing to add this definition, based on

the definition for the same term that was added in the amendment to

Sec. 63.101. This is needed because the EPA is also proposing an

amendment to Secs. 63.506(h)(1)(vi) and 63.1335(h)(1)(vi), specifying

the requirements for keeping descriptions of monitoring systems at

affected sources (based on the amendment to the HON that added similar

requirements at Sec. 63.152(g)(1)(vi)(D).) The proposed definition of

``on-site'' clarifies that the records may be kept anywhere at the

source, such as a central filing area.

``Operating Day''. The EPA is proposing to add a definition for the

term ``operating day'' in order to distinguish an operating day from a

calendar day. Operating days are important for the purposes of

determining daily average monitoring values and batch cycle daily

average monitoring values.

``Organic Hazardous Air Pollutant(s) (Organic HAP)''. The EPA is

proposing to amend this definition, in order to reduce the burden on

industry that was implied by the promulgated clause that said that any

chemical that ``has been or will be reported under any Federal or State

program, such as EPCRA section 311, 312, or 313 or Title V,'' was an

organic HAP. The proposed definition states that only chemicals listed

in Table 5 of subpart U (for subpart U), or Table 6 of subpart JJJ (for

subpart JJJ), or that are listed in Table 2 of subpart F, that are

``knowingly produced or introduced'' into the manufacturing process

constitute ``organic HAP'' for the purposes of subparts U and JJJ.

``Process Unit''. Because the terms ``pipes'' and ``ducts,'' which

were used in the promulgated version of this rule, were undefined, the

EPA has refined the terminology, to use the terms ``hard-piping'' and

``duct work.'' The proposed amendments to Secs. 63.482(a) and

63.1312(a) now cross-reference the definitions of ``hard-piping'' and

``duct work'' in Secs. 63.111 and 63.161, respectively.

``Process Vent''. The EPA is proposing to amend this definition

primarily in order to clarify what constitutes the ``beginning'' and

what constitutes the ``end'' of a process vent. Under the proposed

changes to this definition, a gaseous emission stream is no longer

considered to be a process vent after the stream has been controlled

and monitored in accordance with the applicable provisions of these

rules.

``Product''. The EPA is proposing to amend the definition of

``product'' in subparts U and JJJ in order to clarify that there can be

several different ``recipes'' (see below) for the same product, and

that, in the case of elastomer products, there can be more than one

``grade'' for a product (see Section II.D of this notice). An

additional sentence also clarifies that non-polymer chemicals are

considered to be products, if they are manufactured at a process unit.

``Recipe''. The EPA is proposing to add a definition for the term

``recipe,'' as a very specific mixture of monomers, additives, or other

reactants. This new definition would clarify that a single type of

product (e.g., butyl rubber or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene latex)

could be produced using several different recipes.

``Reconstruction''. The EPA is proposing to add a definition of

``reconstruction'' that is specific to subparts U and JJJ. In the newly

proposed definition, the term ``stationary source'' (used in the HON

definition of ``reconstruction'') has been replaced with the term

``affected source,'' in order to clarify that this definition only

applies to the reconstruction of a subpart U or JJJ ``affected

source.'' The proposed definitions also make clear that (as proposed

under Secs. 63.480(i)(2) and 63.1310(i)(2)) the addition of an emission

point triggers the definition of ``reconstruction,'' when the

``addition'' of the emission point is the result of a process change

that caused a Group 2 emission point to become a Group 1 emission

point, or that caused a non-emission point to become a new ``emission

point,'' as defined in subparts U and JJJ, as long as the other

requirements listed in Secs. 63.480(i)(2) and 63.1310(i)(2) have also

been met.

``Recovery Device''. The definition of ``recovery device'' that the

EPA is proposing to add to subparts U and JJJ is modeled after the

amended definition for the same term in Sec. 63.101. However, the

proposed definition has been slightly restructured by including the

purposes for which a recovery device may be used in a numbered list.

``Recovery Operations Equipment''. The EPA is proposing to amend

this definition to clarify that recovery or recapture devices used as

control devices are not considered to be ``recovery operations

equipment.''

``Residual''. The EPA is proposing to add a definition for the term

``residual'' (instead of simply cross-referencing the definition found

in Sec. 63.111), to clarify that residuals for subparts U and JJJ will

be liquid or solid materials containing organic HAP listed in Table 5

of subpart U (for subpart U) or in Table 6 of subpart JJJ (for subpart

JJJ) that are removed from a wastewater stream by a waste management

unit.

``Shutdown'' and ``Start-up''. The EPA is proposing to add

definitions of ``shutdown'' and ``start-up'' that are modeled after the

HON definitions that subparts U and JJJ previously cross-referenced

(Sec. 63.101), but which have been modified slightly to include subpart

U and JJJ cross-references, and to add provisions specific to batch

process vents.

``Storage Vessel''. The EPA is proposing to amend this definition

to remove the implication that if a tank is not assigned to an EPPU or

TPPU, it is not a storage vessel. A correction is also being proposed

in subpart U, which would change the incorrect term ``bottoms receiver

tanks'' to the correct term ``bottoms receivers.''

``Total Resource Effectiveness (TRE) Index Value''. The EPA is

proposing to add a rule-specific definition for this term in both

subpart JJJ and subpart U. The proposed definitions are largely modeled

after the definition of the same term in Sec. 63.111, but contain

changes specific to the individual rules to which they apply.

``Vent Stream''. The EPA is proposing to add a definition for the

term ``vent stream'' (instead of simply cross-referencing the

definition found in Sec. 63.111), because the definition of ``vent

stream'' in Sec. 63.111 did not include the concept of batch process

vents or aggregate batch vents.

``Waste Management Unit''. The definition of ``waste management

unit'' that the EPA is proposing to add to subparts U and JJJ refers to

the amended definition of the term in Sec. 63.111, with a few word

substitutions (e.g., replacing CMPU with EPPU or TPPU). The amended

definition of ``waste management unit'' in Sec. 63.111 helps clarify

the idea that only once wastewater has been discarded from the process

unit does it become subject to the wastewater provisions. The amended

HON definition also draws a clear distinction between waste management

units and recovery equipment that is considered to be part of the

process unit.

[[Page 11579]]

``Wastewater''. The definition for ``wastewater'' that the EPA is

proposing to add to subparts U and JJJ is largely modeled after the

amended HON definition for the same term in Secs. 63.101 and 63.111,

except that it refers to the appropriate organic HAP lists in subparts

U and JJJ (i.e., Table 5 of subpart U and Table 6 of subpart JJJ). The

EPA is proposing to add these definitions for the term ``wastewater''

to subparts U and JJJ and to delete the cross-references to the HON

definition that were promulgated under Secs. 63.482(a) and 63.1312(a).

However, the proposed definitions in subparts U and JJJ otherwise

mirror the definition promulgated in Sec. 63.111, which was amended in

order to add the concept of the fluid having been ``discarded'' from a

process unit. The proposed ``discard'' concept is fundamental in

distinguishing which fluids exiting the EPPU or TPPU are subject to the

wastewater provisions in Secs. 63.501 or 63.1330, respectively.

Together with the point of determination and in-process equipment

concepts in the amended HON, the proposed definition of ``wastewater''

in subparts U and JJJ, like the amended HON definition, makes decision-

making for owners and operators of facilities (and for regulatory

authorities) more straightforward, and makes the proposed rules easier

to implement than the promulgated rules. Because fluids in the in-

process equipment are also controlled under Secs. 63.501 and 63.1330 in

these proposed amendments, emission reductions will not be affected by

these proposed changes.

``Wastewater Stream''. The EPA is proposing to add a definition of

this term to both subparts U and JJJ, because the definition of this

term in Sec. 63.111 is inappropriate for subparts U and JJJ, in that it

refers to ``wastewater as defined in Sec. 63.101.'' This is

inappropriate for subparts U and JJJ because the EPA is proposing to

define wastewater in Secs. 63.482 and 63.1312, rather than refer to the

definition of that term in Sec. 63.101. Therefore, the EPA is proposing

to add the proposed definitions for the term ``wastewater stream'' to

subparts U and JJJ and to delete the cross-references to the HON

definition of this term in Secs. 63.482(a) and 63.1312(a).

2. Changes Unique to Polymers and Resins I

``Block Polymer''. The EPA is proposing to add a definition of

``block polymer'' because that term is used in the definition of the

term ``resin.''

``Continuous Front-end Process Vent''. In addition to the changes

mentioned above under ``Changes Common to Polymers and Resins I and

IV,'' the EPA is proposing amendments to this definition to correct an

error made at promulgation: the scmm and ppmv cutoffs were meant to

distinguish between Group 1 and Group 2 continuous front-end process

vents, rather than to be a defining characteristic of all continuous

front-end process vents. Therefore, the amended definition of this term

has only one cutoff, which is that the process vent must contain

greater than 0.005 weight percent total organic HAP. The proposed

definition is consistent with the HON's definition for ``process

vent,'' which it was intended to mirror. In addition, the EPA is

proposing to add a sentence to the end of this definition, clarifying

where and how organic HAP weight percent is to be determined.

``Control Device''. The proposed edits to this definition in

subpart U are intended to remove any ambiguity that might have been

caused by the promulgated structure of the definition. In other words,

the EPA is proposing to remove the phrase ``replaced with'' from the

promulgated definition of ``control device,'' and to instead use the

phrase ``shall apply'' in the proposed definition.

``Elastomer Product'' and ``Elastomer Type''. The EPA is proposing

to edit these definitions to clarify that, under subpart U, there are

13 distinctly different ``elastomer types,'' which are listed in the

definition of ``elastomer product.''

``Elastomer Product Process Unit (EPPU)''. The EPA is proposing

changes to this definition to resolve several concerns, and to make a

correction. The last sentence of this definition at promulgation

(beginning ``Compounding units * * *'') was an inadvertent carry over

from subpart JJJ, and did not belong in this definition. That sentence

has been removed from the definition proposed in this notice.

Because the terms ``pipes'' and ``ducts,'' which were used in the

promulgated version of this rule were undefined, the EPA has refined

the terminology, to use the terms ``hard-piping'' and ``duct work.''

The proposed amendments now cross-reference the definitions of ``hard-

piping'' and ``duct work'' in ''63.111 and 63.161, respectively. New

language has also been added to clarify that utilities and other non-

process lines are not considered to be part of the EPPU.

``Emulsion Process'' and ``Suspension Process''. The EPA is

proposing to amend the definitions of ``emulsion process'' and

``suspension process,'' which were nearly identical at promulgation, so

that they are distinguishable from one another, and so that they are

more precise. The terms ``emulsion'' is central to the distinction

between two different elastomer products: styrene butadiene rubber by

solution, and styrene butadiene by emulsion. The term ``suspension

process'' is important for the purposes of defining ``ethylene

propylene rubber.''

``Epichlorohydrin Elastomer''. The EPA is proposing to amend this

definition to simplify the term ``epoxy resins'' to ``epoxies,'' in

order to avoid contradictions between this definition, the definition

of ``elastomer,'' and the definition of ``resin.'' As will be explained

further below, at promulgation, the definition of ``resin'' stated that

a resin is not an elastomer and the definition of ``elastomer'' said

that an elastomer is not a resin, but the EPA decided that this

circular way of defining those terms was not helpful. So, in addition

to proposing to remove the statement in the definition of ``resin''

that indicated that a resin was not an elastomer, the EPA is proposing

to replace the term ``epoxy resins'' with the term ``epoxies,'' in

order to avoid even greater confusion over the interactions between

these definitions.

``Ethylene-propylene rubber''. The EPA is proposing to take out the

phrase ``moderate amount of the'' (which precedes the phrase ``third

polymer''), based on the fact that the phrase ``moderate amount of'' is

not quantitatively defined, and therefore offers little useful

guidance.

``Front-end''. The EPA is proposing to remove a sentence from this

definition that caused confusion and was unnecessary. In particular,

the idea that the ``front-end'' began specifically at ``raw material

storage'' was problematic, in that material could be hard-piped into a

process unit without first being ``stored,'' per se.

``Glass Transition Temperature''. The EPA is proposing to define

this term (which is used in the definition of ``elastomer'') as part of

these amendments, because the meaning of this term, which is central to

the definition of ``elastomer,'' might not be common knowledge to

owners and operators.

``Grade''. The proposed changes to this definition are intended to

better distinguish between the terms ``product,'' ``recipe,'' and

``grade.'' The proposed definition clarifies that a grade is a ``group

of recipes'' used for the production of one elastomer type, but that

more than one recipe can also make up one ``grade.''

``Group 1 Continuous Front-end Process Vent''. The changes that the

[[Page 11580]]

EPA is proposing to make to this definition actually represent a

correction, in that this definition was intended to mirror the HON

definition for ``Group 1 Process Vent,'' but was inadvertently changed

to have more limiting criteria at the promulgation of subpart U. The

missing criteria (i.e., flow rate greater than or equal to 0.005

standard cubic meter per minute and total organic HAP concentration

greater than or equal to 50 parts per million by volume) have been

added to the proposed amendments to this definition.

``Group 2 Continuous Front-end Process Vent''. For similar reasons

to those given above, the EPA is also proposing to amend this

definition, to include the missing distinguishing criteria (i.e., flow

rate less than 0.005 standard cubic meter per minute, total organic HAP

concentration less than 50 parts per million by volume, or total

resource effectiveness index value greater than 1.0).

``Polybutadiene Rubber by Solution'' and ``Styrene Butadiene Rubber

by Solution''. These two definitions are being separated in these

proposed amendments in order to clarify that they constitute two

different elastomer products.

``Resin''. The proposed changes to the definition of ``resin'' are

intended as clarifications, and make no substantive change to this

definition.

``Stripper''. The EPA is proposing to add a very basic definition

of the term ``stripper'' to subpart U, because this term is used in

subpart U and the EPA believes that it would be helpful to define the

term.

``Stripping''. The EPA is proposing to define the term

``stripping'' rather than the term ``stripping technology,'' because

the term ``stripping'' is used in subpart U. The proposed definition of

``stripping'' is largely based on the promulgated definition of

``stripping technology,'' except that the EPA is proposing to be more

specific about which processes are considered to be stripping and which

processes are not considered to be stripping.

Finally, the EPA is proposing to remove the following definitions

from subpart U with these proposed amendments because these terms are

not used in subpart U: ``mass process,'' ``material recovery section,''

``polymerization reaction section,'' ``raw materials preparation

section,'' and ``solid state polymerization unit.''

3. Changes Unique to Polymers and Resins IV

``Continuous Process Vent''. In addition to the changes mentioned

above under ``Changes Common to Polymers and Resins I and IV,'' the EPA

is proposing to add a sentence to the end of this definition,

clarifying where and how organic HAP weight percent is to be

determined.

``Emulsion Process''. The EPA is proposing to expand upon this

definition, in an attempt at further clarifying the differences between

emulsion processes, mass processes, and suspension processes.

``Heat Exchange System''. The EPA is proposing to replace the word

``operated'' with the phrase ``intended to operate'' in this

definition, so that if contact occurs between the cooling medium and

the process fluid or gases, the cooling system does not automatically

cease to be a ``heat exchange system.''

``Material Recovery Section''. There are five changes proposed for

this definition. First, the EPA is proposing to remove the phrase

``purification and treatment'' from the definition. The EPA believes

that this phrase could be interpreted to include wastewater treatment

processes; this was not the intent of the Standards of Performance for

VOC Emissions from the Polymer Manufacturing Industry or the

promulgated Polymers and Resins IV rule. Because this misinterpretation

could occur, the proposed language removes this phrase and replaces it

with the terms ``separation'' and ``recovery.'' The EPA judged that the

terms ``separation'' and ``recovery'' more accurately describe the

physical operations that are taking place.

Second, the EPA believes that the phrase ``off-site purification

and treatment'' could be misinterpreted to exclude on-site activities.

Based on the background documents for the Standards of Performance for

VOC Emissions from the Polymers Manufacturing Industry, which served as

the basis for the definition of ``material recovery section'' and the

provisions contained in Secs. 63.1316 through 63.1320, there is a

distinction between on-site and off-site activities in the Standards of

Performance for VOC Emissions from the Polymers Manufacturing Industry,

and the proposed language is intended to clarify this distinction. The

phrase ``separates and recovers * * * for sale or return to the TPPU''

signifies on-site activities and the phrase ``separates * * * for off-

site recovery'' signifies off-site activities.

Third, the proposed language is intended to clarify that equipment

recovering both ethylene glycol and any other materials is considered

to be in the polymerization reaction section, and not in the material

recovery section. In response to a comment at proposal, the promulgated

rule attempted to make this change but did not do so adequately.

Specifically, the proposed language removes the parenthetical phrase

``(e.g., methanol)'' to avoid implying that methanol is the only other

material of interest.

Fourth, the entire definition of material recovery section has been

revised to clarify that the chemicals involved are restricted to

ethylene glycol and methanol for PET affected sources and styrene for

polystyrene affected sources. During development of the Standards of

Performance for VOC Emissions from the Polymers Manufacturing Industry,

ethylene glycol and methanol (for PET) and styrene (for polystyrene)

were the only chemicals considered to be involved with the material

recovery section. Therefore, other equipment recovering other chemicals

are not considered to be part of the material recovery section, under

the amended definition proposed with today's action.

Fifth, the proposed language removes the following sentences:

Equipment that treats recovered materials are to be included in

this process section, but equipment that also treats raw materials

are not to be included in this process section. The latter equipment

are to be included in the raw materials preparation section.

These sentences were removed because the situation described by them

does not occur in the production of PET or polystyrene.

``Raw Material Preparation Section''. Slight wording changes have

been made to this definition, to clarify the intended meaning of the

term ``raw material preparation section.'' At promulgation, this

definition stated that the raw material preparation section began with

the equipment used to transfer raw materials from storage and ended

with the last piece of equipment that prepares the material for

polymerization. Under the proposed definition, instead of saying that

the raw material preparation section ``begins'' with the equipment used

to transfer raw materials from storage, the rule states that the raw

materials preparation section ``includes'' the equipment used to

transfer raw materials from storage.

``Solid State Polymerization Process''. The EPA is proposing to

define ``solid state polymerization process'' instead of ``solid state

polymerization unit'' (as was done at promulgation), because the term

``solid state polymerization process'' is used in subpart JJJ (in

Sec. 63.1310(d)(5)), while the term ``solid state polymerization unit''

is not.

``Storage Vessel''. In addition to the proposed amendments

described above

[[Page 11581]]

as common changes to subparts U and JJJ, in subpart JJJ the EPA is also

proposing to add ``surge control vessels and bottoms receivers'' to the

list of equipment that are not considered to be storage vessels under

the definition of ``storage vessel'' in subpart JJJ. This change

corresponds to the EPA's proposed change under which surge control

vessels and bottoms receivers would be subject to the requirements of

subpart H, to be consistent with the approach taken in subpart U, with

regard to how it handles surge control vessels and bottoms receivers,

but this proposed change will not cause any change in the actual

control requirements for surge control vessels and bottoms receivers.

``Thermoplastic Product Process Unit (TPPU)''. The EPA is proposing

changes to this definition to resolve several concerns. Because the

terms ``pipes'' and ``ducts,'' which were used in the promulgated

version of this rule were undefined, the EPA has refined the

terminology, to use the terms ``hard-piping'' and ``duct work.'' The

proposed amendments now cross-reference the definitions of ``hard-

piping'' and ``duct work'' in Secs. 63.111 and 63.161, respectively.

New language has also been added to clarify that utilities and other

non-process lines are not considered to be part of the TPPU.

E. Emission Standards--Proposed Changes to Secs. 63.483 and 63.1313

Sections 63.483(b) and 63.1313(b). The text that is proposed to be

added at Secs. 63.483(b) and 63.1313(b) is based on the amended HON

text in Sec. 63.112(e)(3). The proposed revisions to Secs. 63.483 and

63.1313 offer guidance to owners and operators on how to handle

combined emission streams from any variety of sources. The main

difference between the amended HON text at Sec. 63.112(e)(3) and the

proposed text for Secs. 63.483(b) and 63.1313(b) is that the text

proposed in this notice includes specific provisions pertaining to

instances in which the combined emission streams include streams from

continuous process vents and batch process vents, or batch process

vents but not continuous process vents.

As noted above, these provisions offer guidance on how to comply

for combined streams from different types of emission points. With the

exception of combined streams containing batch process vent streams,

the options are to comply with the individual requirements for each

type of emission stream in the combined stream, or to comply with the

most stringent requirement for any stream in the combined stream. The

requirements are listed in order of stringency as follows: (1) Group 1

continuous process vent requirements, (2) Group 1 storage vessel

requirements, (3) waste management unit control requirements, (4)

closed vent system control requirements for in-process equipment, and

(5) aggregate batch vent stream requirements.

Due to the unique nature of batch unit operations, this approach is

not used for combined streams containing batch process vent streams but

no continuous process vent streams. Except when combined with

continuous process vent streams, compliance must be demonstrated with

the batch process vent requirements in Secs. 63.486 through 63.492 and

Secs. 63.1321 through 63.1327 for the portion of the combined stream

from the batch process vent. If a batch process vent stream is combined

with a continuous process vent stream, compliance may be achieved by

complying with the Group 1 continuous process vent requirements.

Because the first ``applicable'' set of requirements listed under

proposed Secs. 63.483(b)(2) and 63.1313(b)(2) for a combined stream

containing both continuous and batch process vent streams is the set of

requirements for continuous process vents (in Secs. 63.485 and

63.1315), a combined stream containing both types of streams would be

subject to the proposed requirements in Secs. 63.485(o) and

63.1315(a)(13), which list the requirements for such a combined stream.

Sections 63.483(c) and 63.1313(c). The EPA is proposing to make

small edits to these paragraphs, to incorporate terminology changes

related to the amended HON wastewater provisions, and to clarify that

restrictions related to which emission points may be included in an

emissions average are discussed in a different section of the rule

(i.e., Secs. 63.503(a)(1) and 63.1332(a)(1)).

F. Storage Vessel Provisions--Proposed Changes to Secs. 63.484 and

63.1314

1. Changes Common to Polymers and Resins I and IV

Sections 63.484(g), (h), (m), (o), (p), and (q); and 63.1314(a)(5)

and (a)(6). The EPA is proposing minor wording changes to these

paragraphs to clarify the intent of the paragraphs and for the sake of

consistency between subpart U and subpart JJJ.

Sections 63.484(i), 63.1314(a)(7), and Promulgated 63.1314(a)(15).

The EPA has realized that promulgated Sec. 63.1314(a)(15) contradicted

promulgated Sec. 63.1314(a)(7), and so proposes to remove the paragraph

promulgated as Sec. 63.1314(a)(15). In addition, the EPA is proposing

to edit Secs. 63.484(i) and 63.1314(a)(7) to state that if a

performance test is required in or acceptable under the continuous

process vent requirements, the batch process vent requirements, and/or

the wastewater provisions in subpart U or JJJ, that performance test

may also be used to show compliance with the storage vessel provisions

in Sec. 63.119(e), as required under Secs. 63.485 and 63.1315.

Sections 63.484(j) and 63.1314(a)(8). The EPA is proposing changes

to this paragraph to clarify the intent of the paragraph and avoid

overlap with other requirements in subparts U and JJJ, and in subpart G

of the HON.

Sections 63.484(k) and (l) and 63.1314(a)(9) and (10). The EPA is

proposing to add these paragraphs to reflect a change to

Secs. 63.506(e)(5)(ii) and 63.1335(e)(5)(ii), clarifying the

differences in recordkeeping and reporting requirements for owners and

operators of storage vessels that are required to continuously monitor

storage vessel control device parameter levels, and those for owners

and operators that are not required to continuously monitor storage

vessel control device parameter levels.

Promulgated Secs. 63.484(n) and 63.1314(a)(12). The EPA is

proposing to remove these paragraphs with these amendments, because

they are no longer pertinent, due to the promulgated HON amendments.

Neither the Implementation Plan nor Sec. 63.151(c) are mentioned in the

amended sections of Secs. 63.119 through 63.123.

Sections 63.484(r) and 63.1314(a)(16). The proposed changes to

these paragraphs represent a correction and clarification with regard

to compliance dates for storage vessels, as they are referred to in the

HON (subpart G).

Sections 63.484(s) and 63.1314(a)(17). The EPA is proposing to add

these paragraphs because, in their promulgated form, both subpart U and

subpart JJJ referred to Sec. 63.11(b) for determining compliance with

the flare requirements. However, Sec. 63.11(b) did not actually require

a compliance demonstration. To remedy this situation, the EPA is

proposing to add a requirement to perform the compliance demonstration

for flares to Secs. 63.504(c) and 63.1333(e). The proposed paragraphs

to be added at Secs. 63.484(s) and 63.1314(a)(17) replace the HON

reference to Sec. 63.11(b) with a reference to the provisions in

Secs. 63.504(c) and 63.1333(e).

2. Changes Unique to Polymers and Resins I

Section 63.484(a). The EPA is proposing to amend this paragraph to

[[Page 11582]]

make the language parallel with that in Sec. 63.1314(a), to avoid

confusion due to unintended differences in the language in subpart JJJ

and the language in subpart U, and to update outdated cross-references.

Section 63.484(b)(2). The EPA is proposing to amend this paragraph

to clarify that storage vessels containing ``other'' latex products, as

the promulgated language stated, was intended to mean latex products

other than styrene-butadiene latex.

G. Continuous Process Vent Provisions--Proposed Changes to Secs. 63.485

and 63.1315

1. Changes Common to Polymers and Resins I and IV

Sections 63.485(a) and 63.1315(a). The proposed changes to these

two paragraphs are intended to make the language in Sec. 63.1315(a)

more consistent with the language in Sec. 63.485(a), and to clarify the

intended meaning of both paragraphs.

Sections 63.485(k) and 63.1315(a)(9). The EPA is proposing to

restructure these two paragraphs to more clearly express the parameter

monitoring requirements and reporting requirements associated with

continuous process vents.

Sections 63.485(l) and 63.1315(a)(10). The EPA is proposing several

changes to these paragraphs. In Secs. 63.485(l) and 63.1315(a)(10),

changes are being proposed that would make subparts U and JJJ more

consistent with the HON requirements for process vents (in Secs. 63.113

through 63.118). At promulgation, the EPA had inadvertently neglected

to include a provision in subparts U and JJJ that was similar to the

provision in Sec. 63.118(k). The proposed addition of paragraphs

Secs. 63.485(l)(5) and 63.1315(a)(10)(v) makes subparts U and JJJ

consistent with the HON by adding paragraphs that are parallel in

meaning to Sec. 63.118(k), which exempts owners and operators from the

requirement to submit a report of a process change in certain

situations (e.g., if the vent stream flow rate is recalculated as being

less than 0.005 standard cubic meter per minute). The EPA is also

requesting comments on the idea of incorporating a similar paragraph as

Sec. 63.1425(f)(7)(v) into subpart PPP, the Polyether Polyols

Production NESHAP.

In addition, as is explained more fully in Section R.1 below, the

EPA is proposing to remove the concept of submitting compliance

schedules throughout subparts U and JJJ. Accordingly, the EPA is

proposing to remove the promulgated requirement to submit compliance

schedules after process changes to continuous process vents, as

discussed in Secs. 63.485(l) and 63.1315(a)(10). The proposed

amendments to these sections simply require that a description of the

process change be submitted within 180 days after the process change is

made or with the next Periodic Report, whichever is later.

Sections 63.485(m) and (n); and 63.1315(a)(12) and (15). The EPA is

proposing to add these paragraphs to provide new exceptions from the

requirement to comply with the provisions in Secs. 63.113 through

63.118, due to new references contained in Secs. 63.113 through 63.118

(i.e., references to HON organic HAP tables, and references to HON

recordkeeping and reporting requirements), which are inappropriate for

subparts U and JJJ.

Sections 63.485(o) and (p); and 63.1315(a)(13) and (14). Under

Secs. 63.485(o) and (p) and 63.1315(a)(13) and (14), the EPA is

proposing to amend the requirements that were promulgated as

Secs. 63.485(m) and (n) and 63.1315(a)(10)(i) and (ii), to better

specify what is meant by ``maximum representative operating

conditions,'' and to clarify where (in the process) testing should be

done. The proposed paragraphs explain that maximum representative

operating conditions do not: (1) Include situations that would cause

damage to equipment; (2) necessitate that the owner or operator make

product that does not meet an existing specification for sale to a

customer; or (3) necessitate that the owner or operator make product in

excess of demand. The EPA is also proposing to add general performance

testing requirements that include these exceptions in Secs. 63.504(a)

and 63.1333(a), as will be discussed in greater detail in Section O.1.

below.

The EPA is also proposing to include regulatory language that

specifies the period of operations that must be considered when

calculating a TRE index value. The TRE index value must be calculated

during periods when one or more batch emission episodes are occurring

that result in the highest organic HAP emission rate (in the combined

vent stream that is being routed to the recovery device) that is

achievable during that 6 month period. For the purposes of determining

the batch emission episode that results in the highest HAP emission

rate, the owner or operator is limited to considering batch emission

episodes that occur during the 6-month period that begins 3 months

before and ends 3 months after the owner or operator conducts the TRE

index value calculation.

With this proposed rulemaking, the EPA has added specific

provisions for combined vent streams, in Secs. 63.485(o)(1), (3), (4),

and (p) and in 63.1315(a)(13)(i), (iii), (iv), and (a)(14). The

proposed amendments in Secs. 63.485(o)(1) and 63.1315(a)(13)(i) would

allow owners and operators of batch process vents or aggregate batch

vent streams that are combined with a Group 1 continuous process vent

stream prior to a control device to either comply with the provisions

in Secs. 63.113 through 63.118 for Group 1 process vents, or comply

with the provisions in Secs. 63.483(b)(1) and 63.1313(b)(1).

The proposed text that is contained in Secs. 63.485(p) and

63.1315(a)(14) pertains to a combined vent stream that is made up of a

stream from outside of the affected source and a continuous process

vent stream, if the two streams are normally conducted through the same

final recovery device.

Sections 63.485(u) and 63.1315(a)(17). The EPA is proposing the

addition of these paragraphs, so that it is clear that the proposed

performance test requirements for flares (contained in Secs. 63.504(c)

and 63.1333(e)) apply. The proposed language in Secs. 63.504(c) and

63.1333(e) specify the requirements from Sec. 63.11(b) that apply to

subpart U and JJJ affected sources. Section O.1. below provides further

rationale pertinent to this change.

Promulgated Secs. 63.485(s) and 63.1315(a)(14). The EPA is

proposing to remove these paragraphs, which are no longer needed,

because the same exemptions are allowed under Sec. 63.116(b), as

amended at promulgation.

2. Changes Unique to Polymers and Resins I

Section 63.485(a) through (j). The changes that the EPA is

proposing to these paragraphs are clarifications and cross-reference

updates. For example, in Sec. 63.485(f), the EPA is proposing to add

the parenthetical ``(i.e., the proposal date for subpart G of this

part),'' after ``December 31, 1992,'' in order to explain the

significance and origin of that particular date. The proposed version

of Sec. 63.481(f) states that when Sec. 63.113 refers to December 31,

1992, ``June 12, 1995'' (the proposal date of subpart U) will instead

apply to subpart U affected sources.

Proposed Sec. 63.485(q). Based on an analysis conducted on the

production of elastomers in gas-phased processes, the EPA reached three

primary conclusions that impact proposed Sec. 63.485(q). First, the

production of any elastomer product

[[Page 11583]]

produced in a gas-phased reaction process, as opposed to only the

production of ethylene propylene rubber, should be exempt from the

requirements to control hydrogen halides and halogens from outlet

combustion devices. This change is addressed in the proposed amendments

to Sec. 63.485(q)(2). Second, the production of elastomer products in a

gas-phased reaction process should be treated as a separate

subcategory, as there are technical differences impacting HAP emissions

and emission control devices between the gas-phased reaction process

and other elastomer production processes.

Finally, the EPA determined that the exemption from the requirement

to control halogens from the outlet of control devices at gas-phased

reaction elastomer production processes represented the MACT floor

level of control for new and existing sources (see Docket item no. XX-

XX-XX, Docket Number A-92-44, for more information). The EPA also

evaluated the more stringent option of requiring the control of

halogens from the outlet of control devices, and found that the costs

per unit of HAP emission reduction (i.e., cost effectiveness) of this

option were higher than generally considered reasonable by the EPA.

Therefore, Sec. 63.485(q) has been restructured to incorporate these

decisions.

Proposed Sec. 63.485(r) and (t). The EPA is proposing minor

wording, cross-reference, and clarifying changes to these paragraphs.

Proposed Sec. 63.485(s)(3) through (s)(6). The EPA is proposing a

change to this paragraph that clarifies that the internal combustion

engine must be running at all times when organic HAP emissions are

being routed to it. The promulgated paragraph described the monitoring

requirements when using an internal combustion engine as a control

device for a continuous front-end process vent, but did not describe

the compliance requirements for that situation.

3. Changes Unique to Polymers and Resins IV

Section 63.1315(e). The EPA is proposing to add this paragraph to

implement requirements for acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin/alpha

methyl styrene acrylonitrile resin (ASA/AMSAN) affected sources. These

requirements were discussed in the preambles to the proposed and

promulgated rules but were inadvertently omitted from the regulatory

text. This paragraph requires that owners or operators reduce organic

HAP emissions from each continuous process vent, each batch process

vent, and each aggregate batch vent stream by 98 weight-percent.

H. PET and Polystyrene Affected Sources--Secs. 63.1316 Through 63.1320

(Polymers and Resins IV Only)

The proposed amendments contain four fundamental changes to the

provisions for temperature limits for final condensers. First, the

proposed amendments change the temperature limit for final condensers

from a parameter monitoring type of limit to an emission limit (i.e.,

violations of the temperature limit are violations of the emission

limitation, not violations of a monitoring limit). Second, the proposed

amendments remove requirements for an initial performance test and

parameter monitoring of the condenser outlet temperature and require

continuous compliance with the daily average temperature for the

condenser outlet. Third, the 6 deg.C (10 deg.F) window that allowed the

average temperature to be 6 deg.C (10 deg.F) warmer than the specified

emission limit has been removed. Fourth, the averaging period has been

changed from a 3-hour period to a 24-hour period. The paragraphs below

describe these and other changes (and the EPA's rationale for those

changes) to the provisions contained in Secs. 63.1316 through 63.1320.

Section 63.1316(a). Poly(ethylene terephthalate) resin (PET) and

polystyrene affected sources are considered to be either batch or

continuous processes. An affected source is defined as batch or

continuous based on the mode of the reactors. That is, if the reactor

is operated in a batch mode, then the entire process is classified as a

batch process, even if there are continuous unit operations elsewhere

within the process unit. The proposed language in Sec. 63.1316(a) is

intended to clarify two points. First, Secs. 63.1316 through 63.1320

are only applicable to process vents at affected sources producing PET

and polystyrene in continuous processes (i.e., a process where the

reactors are operated in a continuous mode). Second, the proposed

revision clarifies that affected sources producing either PET or

polystyrene using a batch process (i.e., a process where the reactors

are operated in a batch mode) are to comply with the provisions in

Sec. 63.1315 for process vents from continuous unit operations within

the process and the provisions in Secs. 63.1321 through 63.1327 for

process vents from batch unit operations within the process.

As part of these changes, the phrase ``continuous process'' has

been removed from the titles for Secs. 63.1316 through 63.1320. The EPA

judged that inclusion of this phrase could mislead readers to believe

that there was a corresponding set of provisions that addressed PET and

polystyrene affected sources using a batch process. The changes

discussed above indicate that affected sources using a continuous

process and those using a batch process are addressed by these

provisions (i.e., Secs. 63.1316 through 63.1320).

Section 63.1316(b) and (c). The proposed language in these

paragraphs is intended to clarify that compliance with 40 CFR, subpart

DDD, is not a violation, but that compliance with subpart JJJ is

required. Another clarifying change that the EPA is proposing is to

replace the phrase ``each owner or operator'' with the phrase ``the

owner or operator,'' (or an equivalent phrase) to eliminate the

possible misinterpretation that more than one owner or operator at a

single affected source would have to illustrate compliance with the

requirements of subpart JJJ. A similar change is being proposed in

various places throughout both subparts U and JJJ.

Section 63.1316(b)(1)(i). This paragraph was reorganized and

rewritten to clarify the intended meaning. In addition, a reference to

Sec. 63.1318(b) was added to improve the clarity of this paragraph.

Section 63.1316(b)(1)(i)(A), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), and

(c)(1)(i). The proposed language in these paragraphs is intended to

clarify that an owner or operator may either meet the specified

emission limit for each individual process section (e.g., material

recovery section or polymerization reaction section) independently or

may meet the specified emission limit for the collection of that type

of process section (e.g., material recovery section or polymerization

reaction section) within the affected source (as a group).

Section 63.1316(b)(1)(i)(B) and (c)(1)(ii). The proposed language

in these paragraphs specifies that the averaging period for the

temperature limit is a 24-hour period. The promulgated paragraph was

not specific, but a 3-hour averaging period was implied. The EPA has

determined that a 3-hour averaging period is inconsistent with other

provisions of the rule which require compliance on a daily average

basis. The EPA has judged that adding to the consistency of the

provisions by having 24-hour averaging periods throughout the rule will

benefit both the Agency and the regulated community. The EPA believes

that little loss in stringency will result from changing from a 3-hour

averaging period to a daily (i.e., 24 hour) average.

[[Page 11584]]

The EPA is also proposing to add a citation to Sec. 63.1318(d), in

order to clarify that the daily average shall be maintained according

to the provisions of Sec. 63.1318(d). The proposed provisions in

Sec. 63.1318(d) reference other proposed provisions in subpart JJJ that

specify how the daily average is to be determined, and that clarify

that values recorded during periods of start-up, shutdown, and

malfunction are not to be included in the determination of the daily

average.

Section 63.1316(b)(1)(iii), (b)(1)(iv), (b)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(iv),

(c)(1), and (c)(3). These paragraphs were reorganized and rewritten to

clarify the intended meaning.

Section 63.1316(c)(1)(iii)(A). The EPA is proposing to amend the

language in Sec. 63.1316(c)(1)(iii)(A), which, as promulgated, provides

owners and operators of polystyrene affected sources with the option of

reducing emissions from continuous process vents in the collection of

material recovery sections by 98 weight percent or to an outlet

concentration of 20 parts per million by volume. The proposed amendment

clarifies that the use of a combustion device (including, but not

limited to, thermal incinerators, catalytic incinerators, boilers, or

process heaters) is required when choosing this compliance option. The

regulation as promulgated already provided an owner or operator with

the flexibility to use any type of efficient recovery device to comply

with Sec. 63.1316(c)(1)(i). Unless the proposed clarifying amendment to

Sec. 63.1316(c)(1)(iii)(A) is made to specify that the 98 percent/20

ppmv option must be met using combustion devices only, this option

could inappropriately be used to demonstrate compliance through the use

of relatively inefficient recovery devices, since the inlet location

for performance testing is not specified.

Section 63.1317. The proposed language in this section changes the

requirements for monitoring the condenser exit temperature from a 3-

hour averaging period to a daily (i.e., 24-hour average). This change

is accomplished by removing promulgated paragraph (b). This section, as

proposed, references the monitoring provisions for continuous process

vents which are being proposed to specify that monitoring averages are

based on a 24-hour averaging period.

Section 63.1317, 63.1318(a), 63.1319(a), and 63.1320(a). The

proposed language in these paragraphs is intended to clarify that the

references to group determinations and TRE determinations do not apply

to owners and operators under these paragraphs.

Section 63.1318(b)(1)(i). The proposed language in this paragraph

is intended to clarify that the location of the sampling point to be

used for determining the mass emission rate is after the last recovery

or control device.

Section 63.1318(d). The proposed language in this section changes

the requirements for demonstrating compliance with the temperature

limits for final condensers. The promulgated rule required a

performance test to demonstrate initial compliance and required

monitoring of the condenser outlet temperature using a 3-hour averaging

period. An exceedance of the temperature limit was considered to be an

exceedance of the monitoring provisions (similar to having a daily

average that was above the maximum or below the minimum level for

parameter monitoring). The promulgated rule also provided a 6 deg.C

(10 deg.F) window that allowed the 3-hour average to be 6 deg.C

(10 deg.F) warmer than the specified emission limit. The EPA is

proposing to eliminate these three concepts with these amendments, for

the reasons explained below.

The provisions in Secs. 63.1316 through 63.1320 are based on the

provisions from the Standards of Performance for VOC Emissions from the

Polymers Manufacturing Industry (40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD). At

initial proposal and promulgation of subpart JJJ of this part, the EPA

made an error in incorporating the Standards of Performance for VOC

Emissions from the Polymers Manufacturing Industry, and the proposed

changes in these amendments are meant to correct that error. The

Standards of Performance for VOC Emissions from the Polymers

Manufacturing Industry specify that the condenser temperature limit is

an emission limitation, in that a 3-hour average temperature greater

than the specified temperature limit is a violation of the emission

limit. In the promulgated rule, the EPA mistakenly required monitoring

(in Sec. 63.1318(d)(1)) that more closely paralleled the parameter

monitoring required in Sec. 63.1334 than it paralleled the Standards of

Performance for VOC Emissions from the Polymers Manufacturing Industry.

The Standards of Performance for VOC Emissions from the Polymers

Manufacturing Industry do not require a performance test or

establishment of a monitoring level because the condenser temperature

limit is an emission limit. The Standards of Performance for VOC

Emissions from the Polymers Manufacturing Industry also do not allow

for the 6 deg.C (10 deg. F) temperature window that subpart JJJ allowed

(by allowing the 3-hour average to be 6 deg.C (10 deg.F) warmer than

the specified emission limitation). A temperature window is included in

the Standards of Performance for VOC Emissions from the Polymers

Manufacturing Industry, but it applies only when an owner or operator

is using a condenser as a control device to meet a percent reduction

requirement. Because the Standards of Performance for VOC Emissions

from the Polymers Manufacturing Industry level of control was found to

be the MACT floor, the changes described above make the provisions in

Secs. 63.1316 through 63.1320 consistent with the MACT floor.

Finally, the EPA is also proposing to change the continuous

compliance demonstration averaging period from a 3-hour period to a 24-

hour period in Sec. 63.1318(d). As previously discussed in this

preamble, the EPA is proposing this change to be consistent with other

provisions of the rule which require compliance on a daily average

basis.

Section 63.1319(b). The proposed changes to Sec. 63.1319(b) are

intended to clarify that this paragraph applies only to owners or

operators complying with Sec. 63.1316(b)(1)(i) (i.e., demonstrating

that emissions are less than 0.12 kilogram of organic HAP per megagram

of product at existing affected sources producing PET using a

continuous dimethyl terephthalate process). The EPA is also proposing

to remove Sec. 63.1319(b)(2) of Sec. 63.1319 and to renumber

Sec. 63.1319(b)(2)(ii) as Sec. 63.1319(b)(2) as part of this change.

The proposed language in this paragraph also removes the

requirement to record a list of each process variable change that may

result in an increase in the mass emissions per mass product. The EPA

believes that such a requirement is burdensome and unnecessary for

subpart JJJ because, if changes are made that would increase mass

emissions per mass product, those changes would qualify as process

changes, and process changes are addressed in other sections of the

rule (see 63.1310(i)(4)). Another proposed change to Sec. 63.1319(b) is

that the qualifying phrase ``up-to-date and readily accessible'' has

been removed from the requirement to keep records. This qualifying

phrase was redundant with the requirements of Sec. 63.1335(d).

Section 63.1319(c). The proposed changes in Sec. 63.1319(c)

correspond to the proposed changes in Sec. 63.1318(d) (described

above). The proposed changes state that, instead of keeping records of

monitoring data for each 3-hour averaging period (promulgated paragraph

(c)(1)) and records of the initial performance test (promulgated

[[Page 11585]]

paragraph (c)(2)), the owner or operator shall keep records of the

daily averages demonstrating continuous compliance.

Section 63.1320(b). The EPA is proposing to insert a parenthetical

phrase, to improve the clarity of this paragraph.

Section 63.1320(b)(1) and (2). The proposed language in these

paragraphs has been changed to reflect the changes made to

Sec. 63.1319(b).

Section 63.1320(b)(3). The proposed change to Sec. 63.1320(b)(3)

removes the requirement to submit a schedule for compliance, for the

reasons laid out in section R.1 of this preamble.

Section 63.1320(c). The promulgated paragraph contained reporting

requirements for affected sources complying with the temperature limit

for final condensers based on the promulgated requirements for a

performance test and parameter monitoring. The requirements of this

paragraph are no longer applicable, and the EPA is proposing to

``reserve'' this paragraph.

I. Batch Process Vents--Proposed Changes to Secs. 3.486 Through 63.492

and 63.1321 through 63.1327

1. Changes Common to Polymers and Resins I and IV

The proposed amendments contain changes to two fundamental parts of

the batch process vent provisions: (1) the group determination

procedures and (2) the batch cycle limitation. A brief outline of and

rationale for the proposed amendments to the batch process vent

provisions is provided below. In addition, the EPA is requesting

comments, with this notice, on the EPA's intention of including similar

revisions to rules modeled after the Polymers and Resins rules and/or

rules that refer to the batch process vent provisions in the Polymers

and Resins rules (e.g., the National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants for Polyether Polyols Production, part 63, subpart PPP).

Batch Process Vent Group Determination. According to the proposed

amendments, for each batch process vent the owner or operator must

determine group status based on either (1) the expected mix of

``products'' (using the highest-HAP recipe for each product, including

non-elastomer and non-thermoplastic products), or (2) annualized

production of the single ``highest-HAP recipe'' considering all recipes

for all products (including non-elastomer and non-thermoplastic

products). The primary changes from the promulgated rules are that the

proposed amendments clarify that all products (e.g., non-elastomer and

non-thermoplastic products in addition to elastomer and thermoplastic

products) are to be considered when the owner or operator is using

either the expected mix of products or the single highest-HAP recipe

option, and that the concept of ``worst-case HAP emitting product'' has

been replaced with the concept of the ``highest-HAP recipe'' for a

particular product or amongst a group of products.

If the expected mix option is selected for the batch process vent

group determination, the emissions used for the group determination

must be emissions when producing the highest-HAP recipe for each

product in the expected mix of products produced by the affected

source. If the single highest-HAP recipe option is selected for the

batch process vent group determination, the determination is based on

emissions from the annualized production of the highest-HAP recipe

considering all products.

Important definitions to be added to clarify these requirements

include the definitions for ``highest-HAP recipe'' and ``recipe''.

``Recipe'' is defined as a specific composition, from among the range

of possible compositions that might occur within a product, and is

determined by the proportions of monomers and, if present, other

reactants and additives that are used to make the recipe. ``Highest-HAP

recipe'' is the recipe with the highest total mass of HAP charged to

the reactor. The EPA believes that determining the ``highest-HAP

recipe'' is less difficult and burdensome than determining ``worst-case

HAP emitting product,'' as was required at promulgation of subparts U

and JJJ.

The concept of recipe has been added to distinguish between a

``recipe'' and the intended meaning of the term ``product.'' After the

promulgation of subparts U and JJJ, some industry representatives

interpreted the term ``product'' to mean the multiple variations of a

given type of elastomer or thermoplastic. For example, a company may

produce as many as 100 variations of styrene butadiene latex, where the

variations could occur due to relatively minor changes (i.e., the type

or amount of catalysts or additives, the ratio of monomers, etc). Some

owners and operators interpreted the promulgated rules to mean that

each of the 100 variations would be a different product. However, in

the promulgated rule, it was the EPA's intent that owners and operators

consider each of these 100 variations of styrene butadiene latex to be

the same ``product.'' A revised definition of ``product'' has been

included in today's proposal, in order to avoid any further confusion.

The addition of the concept of ``recipe'' should further clarify the

intent of the rule, and address the disconnect between the intended

meaning of the term ``product'' and industry's interpretation of the

term.

The EPA has determined that the promulgated process of first

estimating emissions for all products produced in a unit operation, and

then basing the group determination on the ``worst-case HAP emitting

product'' at each individual emission point was unnecessarily

burdensome. The EPA has concluded that, for a given product, the amount

of HAP emitted is closely related to the amount of HAP charged to the

reactor. Therefore, the EPA believes that the amount of HAP charged to

the reactor is an acceptable surrogate for HAP emissions when selecting

the recipe to use when performing the batch process vent group

determination procedures. For batch process vents other than those at

the reactor, the same recipe that was determined to be the ``highest-

HAP'' recipe at the reactor is to be used when performing the group

determination.

Requiring the use of the highest-HAP recipe when estimating

emissions for the purposes of the group determination (instead of the

``worst-case HAP emitting product'') simplifies the group determination

procedures, because an owner or operator is not required to make

repetitive emission estimates to determine which product type to use

when performing the group determination procedures. Instead, the

revised procedures allow selection of the appropriate recipe for the

purposes of the group determination based on the mass of HAP charged to

the reactor, which is an objective characteristic of the recipe that is

known by the owner or operator. Once the highest-HAP recipe is

determined, the annual emissions for that recipe alone need to be

determined and used in the batch process vent group determination

procedures.

Batch Mass Input Limitation (formerly ``Batch Cycle Limitation'').

The first major change that the EPA is proposing to the batch cycle

limitation concept is that the units have changed from ``number of

batches'' to ``mass input.'' The limitation for Group 2 batch process

vents is no longer based on the number of batch ``cycles'' for the

batch unit operation, but is now based on the total mass of HAP charged

to the reactor or the total mass of material charged to other batch

unit operations. Therefore, the name batch ``cycle'' limitation is no

longer accurate. The EPA is proposing

[[Page 11586]]

to change the name of this limitation to ``batch mass input

limitation.''

The purpose of the promulgated ``batch cycle limitation'' was to

ensure that either the Group 2 batch process vent would not have annual

emissions greater than 11,800 kg/yr, or that the Group 2 batch process

vent would not have an annual average batch vent flow rate that

exceeded its cutoff flow rate. In other words, the promulgated ``batch

cycle limitation'' was intended to monitor an easily determined

parameter (i.e., the number of batch cycles run) to verify that the

vent did not become Group 1.

While the proposed change does not affect the purpose of the

limitation (to verify that the vent does not become Group 1), it does

change the basis of the limitation to a parameter that is more directly

related to HAP emissions. The proposed change allows a certain amount

of flexibility to owners or operators, so that they may implement

manufacturing changes that may affect the number of batch cycles

without affecting HAP emissions. Under the proposed amendments, larger

batches or a larger number of batches may be used to produce an

increased amount of product, as long as the total mass of HAP input to

the reactor (or total mass of material input to other batch unit

operations) does not increase beyond the established limitation. This

not only allows owners and operators more operating flexibility, but

produces an incentive to develop more efficient production methods.

Under the proposed amendments, the facility must determine the

batch mass input limitation for each vent based on either (1) the

expected mix of products (using the highest-HAP recipe for each

product, and including non-elastomer products and non-thermoplastic

products), or (2) annualized production of the single highest-HAP

recipe considering all recipes for all products. The approach used to

determine the batch mass input limitation must be the same one used in

the group determination (described above), since the batch mass input

limitation is intended to be a gauge for possible group changes. The

emissions used when determining the batch mass input limitation for

each Group 2 batch process vent must be calculated using the highest-

HAP recipe for each product, if the expected mix of products option is

selected, or the highest-HAP recipe considering all the recipes for all

of the products, if the annualized production of the single highest-HAP

recipe option is selected. The owner or operator must report the batch

mass input limitation, keep records of the calculations, monitor the

mass of HAP or material fed to the batch unit operation, and report the

total mass of material fed to the batch unit operation each year.

There is one exemption from the proposed batch mass input

limitation provisions: if the vent is Group 2 at the maximum design

capacity of the process unit, then the owner or operator is exempt from

the requirement to calculate a batch mass input limitation for that

batch process vent (see Secs. 63.487(h) and 63.1322(h)). The EPA is

requesting comments on whether or not the ``maximum design capacity''

of a batch process vent is a readily definable parameter for these

industries.

As opposed to the preceding explanations of proposed conceptual

changes in the batch process vent requirements, the paragraphs below

discuss changes to individual paragraphs or sets of paragraphs.

Sections 63.487(a)(1)(i) & (b)(1)(i), 63.1322(a)(1)(i) & (b)(1)(i),

63.491(b)(3)(ii), and 63.1326(b)(3)(ii). Flare requirements have been

added to Secs. 63.504(c) and 63.1333(e), to make it clear that a

compliance demonstration for flares must be conducted using the

provisions found in Sec. 63.11(b), as will be explai

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.