# 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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-3853

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** March 9, 1999
- **Citation:** 64 FR 11560

## Text

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

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-3853. Public record. Not legal advice.