[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 93 (Monday, May 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10973]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 16, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-4881-6]
RIN 2060-AD97

 

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed standard would limit emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) from existing and new facilities that manufacture 
polymers and resins produced from epichlorohydrin feedstock, 
specifically, basic liquid epoxy resins (BLR) and non-nylon polyamide 
resins, also known as wet strength resins (WSR). The proposed standards 
implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act) amendments of 1990, 
which require the Administrator to regulate emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The intent of these 
standards is to protect the public by requiring new and existing major 
sources to control emissions to the level achievable by the maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT), taking into consideration the 
cost of achieving such emission reductions, any nonair quality and 
other air quality related health and environmental impacts, and energy 
requirements.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 15, 1994.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by June 6, 1994, a public hearing will be held on June 
15, 1994, beginning at 10 a.m. Persons interested in attending the 
hearing should call Ms. Lina Hanzely at (919) 541-5673 to verify that a 
hearing will be held.
    Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral 
testimony must contact EPA by June 6, 1994, by contacting Ms. Lina 
Hanzely, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch, (MD-13), U. S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-5673.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if 
possible) to: Air Docket Section (LE-131), Attention: Docket No. A-92-
37, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20460.

Background Information Document

    The background information document (BID) for the proposed standard 
may be obtained from the docket or from the U. S. EPA Library (MD-35), 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 
541-2777. Please refer to ``Emissions from Epoxy Resins Production and 
Non-Nylon Polyamides Production--Background Information for Proposed 
Standards'' EPA 453/R-94-033a.
    Docket. Docket No. A-92-37, containing supporting information used 
in developing the proposed standards, is available for public 
inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, at EPA's Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall, room 1500, 1st 
Floor, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
standards, contact Mr. Randy McDonald at (919) 541-5402, Chemicals and 
Petroleum Branch, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U. S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble 
is organized as follows:

I. List of Source Categories
II. Background
III. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) Decision Process
    A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
    B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
IV. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. Source Categories to be Regulated
    B. Pollutants to be Regulated
    C. Affected Emission Points
    D. Format of the Standards
    E. Proposed Standards
    F. Certification of Compliance
    G. Monitoring Requirements
    H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
V. Summary Of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
    A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP
    B. Air Impacts
    C. Water and Solid Waste Impacts
    D. Energy Impacts
    E. Cost Impacts
    F. Economic Impacts
VI. Rationale
    A. Selection of Emission Points to be Covered by the Standards
    B. Designation of Sources
    C. Selection of Basis and Level of Proposed Standards for 
Existing Sources
    D. Selection of Basis and Level of Proposed Standards for New 
Sources
    E. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards
    F. Selection of Compliance and Performance Testing Provisions 
and Monitoring Requirements
    G. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    H. Operating Permit Program
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Public Hearing
    B. Docket
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    F. Miscellaneous

I. List of Source Categories

    Section 112 of the amended Act requires that EPA evaluate and 
control emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is achieved through 
promulgation of emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f) and 
work practice and equipment standards under section 112(h) for 
categories of sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, EPA published an 
initial list of major and area source categories to be regulated (57 FR 
31576). Included on that list were major sources emitting HAP from 
epoxy resins and non-nylon polyamides production.
    The categories of major sources that would be affected by this 
regulation are defined as the manufacture of basic liquid epoxy resins 
(BLR) and resins made of epichlorohydrin (EPI) cross-linked non-nylon 
polyamides, also known as wet strength resins (WSR). The BLR source 
category does not include the manufacture of specialty epoxy resins 
(epoxy resins that are not BLR) or the modification of epoxy resins 
(BLR that are blended with solvents, reactive diluents, or other 
resins). The WSR source category are those that are made with dibasic 
esters, dicarboxylic acids, amines, and EPI. In developing the 
background information to support the proposed standard, no reasons for 
subcategorizing either of the source categories were identified.
    Production methods used in the two source categories include both 
batch and continuous operations. The sizes of the facilities range from 
those that make several thousand pounds of resin per year (lb/yr) to 
those that produce over 100 million lb/yr. Air emissions of HAP 
compounds originate from breathing and working losses from storage 
tanks, venting of process vessels, leaks from piping equipment used to 
transfer HAP compounds (equipment leaks), and volatilization of HAP 
from wastewater streams. Pollutants (HAP) emitted from the production 
processes include EPI, methanol, and hydrochloric acid (HCl). Detailed 
information describing manufacturing processes and emissions can be 
found in ``Emissions from Epoxy Resins Production and Non- Nylon 
Polyamides Production--Background Information for Proposed Standards'' 
(EPA 453/R-94-033a), Chapter 3.
    As of 1990, only three U.S. companies were producing BLR. All three 
of these facilities are considered to be major sources according to the 
Act criterion of having the potential to emit 10 tons per year of any 
one HAP or 25 tons per year of combined HAP. There are at least 17 
facilities in the U.S. that manufacture WSR; of these, 9 are considered 
major sources because they are co-located within larger chemical 
manufacturing operations, based on the criteria mentioned above. The 
proposed standard would apply to all major sources that produce BLR 
and/or WSR. Area sources would not be subject to this standard.

II. Background

    In 1989, EPA conducted a study that examined the use of 
epichlorohydrin in industry. This study identified the BLR and WSR 
industries as the major users of epichlorohydrin in the U.S.
    Under section 112(c) of the Act, the Administrator is required to 
publish and from time to time revise a list of source categories and 
subcategories that emit one or more of the hazardous air pollutants 
listed in section 112, as amended. Information from the study of 
epichlorohydrin use in industry was used during the development of the 
source category list. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published 
the initial list of source categories, which includes epoxy resins 
production and non-nylon polyamides production.

III. Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection 
Agency the authority to establish national standards to reduce air 
emissions from sources that emit one or more HAP. Section 112(b) 
contains a list of HAP to be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c) 
directs the Agency to use this pollutant list to develop and publish a 
list of source categories for which NESHAP will be developed; this list 
was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). 
The Agency must list all known categories and subcategories of ``major 
sources'' (defined below) that emit one or more of the listed HAP. A 
major source is defined in section 112 (a) as any stationary source or 
group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under 
common control that emits or has the potential to emit in the 
aggregate, considering controls, 10 tons per year or more of any one 
HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

    The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both 
new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out 
in section 112(d) of the Act. The statute requires the standards to 
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is 
achievable for new or existing sources. This control level is referred 
to as the ``maximum achievable control technology'' (MACT). The 
selection of MACT must reflect consideration of the cost of achieving 
the emission reduction, any nonair quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements for control levels more stringent than 
the floor (described below).
    The MACT floor is the least stringent level for MACT standards. For 
new sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory ``shall 
not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 
practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the 
Administrator'' (section 112(d)(3)). Existing source standards should 
be no less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by 
the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for categories 
and subcategories with 30 or more sources or the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (section 112(d)(3)).
    In a March 9, 1994 Federal Register notice reopening the public 
comment period for determination of ``MACT floor'' for NESHAP source 
categories (59 FR 11018), the Agency considered more than one 
interpretation of the statutory language concerning the MACT floor for 
existing sources and solicited comment on them. The MACT floor decision 
that the EPA will make on the basis of this March 9, 1994 notice will 
have broad precedential effects, and will presumptively be followed by 
the Agency in any rulemakings subsequently promulgated under Title III 
of the Act. The MACT floor determinations proposed in today's 
rulemaking may therefore be affected by the Agency's final 
interpretation of ``MACT floor.''

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Source Categories To Be Regulated

    The proposed standards would regulate HAP emissions from epoxy 
resins production (facilities that produce BLR), and from non-nylon 
polyamides production (facilities that produce WSR), that are 
determined to be major sources. The standards would apply to existing 
sources as well as new sources.

B. Pollutants To Be Regulated

    Hazardous air pollutants emitted from existing BLR and wet strength 
resin production processes include epichlorohydrin, methanol, and 
hydrochloric acid. The proposed standards would regulate emissions of 
these compounds, as well as any other HAP that may be emitted.
    In addition, note that epichlorohydrin is listed under section 
112(r) of the Act. The intent of section 112(r), Prevention of 
Accidental Releases, is to focus on chemicals that pose a significant 
hazard to the community should an accident occur, to prevent their 
accidental release, and to minimize consequences should a release 
occur. Epichlorohydrin, along with the other substances listed under 
section 112(r)(3), is listed because it is known to cause, or may be 
reasonably anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse 
effects to human health or the environment (see 59 FR 4478, January 31, 
1994). Sources that handle epichlorohydrin in greater quantities than 
the established threshold quantity under section 112(r)(5) will be 
subject to the risk management program requirements under Section 
112(r)(7) (see 58 FR 54190, October 20, 1993).

C. Affected Emission Points

    Emission points identified for BLR and wet strength resin 
production include process vents, equipment leaks, storage tanks, and 
wastewater.

D. Format of the Standards

    The standards for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater for 
existing facilities are presented in an emission limit format in the 
units of pounds of HAP per 1 million pounds of product (lb HAP/MM lb 
product). Facilities will have the option of using any control 
technology or pollution prevention strategy, as long as the HAP 
production-based emission limits are achieved. An emission limit format 
cannot be used for the standard for new facilities because it would 
identify a specific facility's production level, which is claimed as 
confidential business information. Therefore, standards for new 
facilities are in the equipment standard format. Facilities would have 
to implement the controls specified in the standard, or demonstrate 
equivalency, to achieve compliance.
    The EPA solicits comments on the equipment standard format of the 
standards for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater at new 
facilities. In particular, the EPA solicits comments on whether 
performance standards for vents, tanks, and wastewater at new 
facilities can be used without compromising confidential business 
information and whether operators can comply with performance standards 
for vents, tanks, and wastewater at new facilities without compromising 
confidential business information.
    Standards for equipment leaks are specified for new and existing 
BLR facilities, and are presented as an alternative standard for new 
and existing wet strength resin facilities. Equipment leak standards 
are in the form of equipment/work practice standards. Facilities would 
be required to implement the program specified in the proposed 
regulation to achieve compliance with the standard.

E. Proposed Standards

    Table 1 summarizes the standards for existing BLR and WSR sources. 
In each case, for purposes of determining compliance with the emission 
requirements, the source was divided into two portions: (1) The 
combination of process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater, and (2) 
equipment leaks. The proposed standards for BLR production would 
require existing facilities to limit emissions from all process vents, 
storage tanks, and wastewater combined to a level at or below 130 lb 
HAP/MM lb production. Existing BLR facilities would also be required to 
implement the leak detection and repair (LDAR) program specified in the 
Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart H). 
The LDAR program specified under subpart H requires specific equipment 
modifications and work practices that reduce emissions from equipment 
leaks. 

        Table 1.--Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Wet strength resins       
                      Basic liquid   -----------------------------------
 Emission source     epoxy resins                          Equivalent   
                                                            standard    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Existing sources                            
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Process        Emission limit of  Emission limit    No requirement. 
 vents, storage     130 lb/MM lb       of 10 lb/MM lb                   
 tanks, and         product.           product.                         
 wastewater.                                                            
(2) Equipment      Requirements of    No requirement..  Requirements of 
 leaks.             40 CFR 63,                           40 CFR 63,     
                    subpart H.                           subpart H.     
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              New sources                               
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Process        (a) Route process  (a) Control       No requirement. 
 vents, storage     vents and          process vent                     
 tanks and          storage tank       emissions w/                     
 wastewater.        vents to a         water-cooled                     
                    common water       condenser @ 25                   
                    scrubber w/        deg.C.                           
                    efficiency of 99                                    
                    percent.                                            
                   (b) Recirculate    (b) Eliminate     ................
                    scrubber liquor    the production                   
                    back to process.   of methanol by-                  
                                       product in the                   
                                       manufacturing                    
                                       process                          
                   (c) Control        (c) Eliminate     ................
                    wastewater to      the use of                       
                    99%.               hydrochloric                     
                                       acid in the                      
                                       manufacturing                    
                                       process                          
(2) Equipment      Requirements of    No requirement..  Requirements of 
 leaks.             40 CFR 63,                           40 CFR 63,     
                    subpart H.                           subpart H.     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new BLR facilities, the standards would be based on the 
technology used by the best performing facility in the category for 
process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater, which is the use of a 99 
percent efficient water scrubber on all process vents coupled with 
recirculation of the scrubber effluent to the process, and 99 percent 
control of emissions from wastewater. As for existing facilities, new 
facilities would be required to implement the LDAR program of subpart H 
to control equipment leak emissions.
    For existing wet strength resin facilities, the proposed standards 
would require an emission limit of 10 lb HAP/MM lb product from process 
vents, wastewater, and storage tanks combined. No emission limits or 
equipment standards are required for equipment leaks; however, 
facilities may elect to implement the subpart H LDAR program in lieu of 
complying with the emission limit for process vents, storage tanks, and 
wastewater, as this alternative would achieve a greater emission 
reduction. Similar to BLR production, for new wet strength resin 
facilities, the standards would be based on the technology used by the 
best performing source in the category. This technology is the use of a 
water-cooled condenser, from which the outlet gas temperature shall be 
no higher than 25  deg.C, on the batch reactor and no methanol by-
product formation or hydrochloric acid usage, or the implementation of 
the subpart H LDAR program to control equipment leak emissions.

F. Certification of Compliance

    1. Existing sources
    a. Process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points. To 
determine compliance with the emission limit for process vents, storage 
tanks, and wastewater combined, the owner or operator of an existing 
BLR or WSR manufacturing facility would calculate the total emissions 
per product produced by summing the production-based emission values 
for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater according to the 
following equation:

E=PV=ST=WW    (1)
where:
E=Emissions, lb HAP/106 lb product
PV=Process vent emissions, lb HAP/106 lb product
ST=Storage tank emissions, lb HAP/106 lb product
WW=Wastewater emissions, lb HAP/106 lb product

The required calculation methods for each type of emission point are 
described below for the BLR and WSR source categories.
    i. BLR source category. For basic liquid resin production, tests 
would be required to determine the flow rate and HAP concentration of 
emissions from process vents and, where applicable, storage tank vents 
that are combined with process vents. Data from three 1-hour tests 
would be used to calculate an average HAP emission rate in pounds per 
hour. Initial performance tests for uncontrolled streams or streams 
controlled by devices other than flares and certain boilers and process 
heaters would consist of measuring HAP concentration using the EPA 
Method 18 or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Method 25A may 
be used only if a single HAP compound greater than 50 percent of the 
total organic HAP in the vent stream and that HAP compound is used for 
calibration. Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is 
specified for measuring vent stream flowrate.
    To determine the production-based emission rate for process vents, 
the owner or operator would calculate an hourly rate of production 
based on production data for the previous year and the actual operating 
hours during the same annual period. For each vent, the hourly emission 
rate, determined from the average of three 1-hour tests, would be 
divided by the hourly production rate (calculated as described above) 
to determine the production-based emission rate for the vent. The sum 
of production-based emission rates from all process vents (and storage 
tank vents if manifolded with process vents) constitutes the first term 
in the equation used to determine compliance. Because emissions are 
divided by the annual production of the previous year, testing must 
take place under operating conditions that represent the production 
rate for the previous year.
    Emissions from storage tanks not manifolded with process vents 
would be calculated according to the methodology described in 40 CFR 
63.150(f)(3). The annual emissions would be divided by the annual 
production from the previous year to determine the production-based 
emission rate from storage tanks.
    Emissions from wastewater would be calculated according to the 
methodology described in 40 CFR 63.150(f)(5). Monthly emissions 
calculated using this methodology would be divided by a monthly 
production rate, which would be calculated by dividing the annual 
production rate for the previous year by 12. Testing is required by 40 
CFR 163.150(f)(5) to determine wastewater stream parameters such as the 
flow rate and HAP concentration. Because emissions would be divided by 
a production rate calculated using production data for the previous 
year, test conditions must reflect typical production for the previous 
year.
    ii. WSR source category. If a process uses a condenser to recover 
HAP, emissions would be calculated for the purpose of determining 
compliance using equations developed for batch operations, in lieu of 
compliance tests. Testing would be required to determine the emission 
rate from uncontrolled vents and vents controlled by devices other than 
condensers. Testing requirements are the same as for the BLR source 
category, except that testing would take place over the batch cycle, 
rather than hourly. Likewise, the production-based emission rates used 
in the equation to determine compliance would be calculated based on 
emissions and production data obtained on a per-batch basis, not per-
hour as is the case for the BLR source category.
    As with the BLR source category, storage tank emission calculations 
would follow the methodology described in 40 CFR 63.150(f)(3). The 
methodology of 40 CFR 63.150(f)(5) would be used to determine emissions 
from wastewater.
    b. Equipment leaks emission point. To determine compliance with the 
standard for equipment leaks, BLR and WSR facilities would have to 
demonstrate that an LDAR program meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart H (40 CFR 63.160-63.183) is in place. This includes 
performance of the test methods and procedures used to verify the 
adequacy of monitoring equipment outlined in 40 CFR 63.180.
2. New Sources
    a. BLR source category. Although the proposed standards for new BLR 
sources are essentially equipment standards, control efficiencies are 
required for the equipment specified in the standards. Therefore, in 
addition to installing the equipment required by the standards, new BLR 
facilities would be required to perform the appropriate EPA test 
methods to demonstrate that the common water scrubber required to 
control emissions from process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater is 
achieving 99 percent control. The testing methodology described in 40 
CFR 163.150(f)(5) would be required to demonstrate that wastewater 
treatment systems are achieving 99 percent control.
    b. WSR source category. The equipment standards for new WSR 
facilities do not specify any control efficiencies that must be 
achieved. Therefore, facilities would only be required to demonstrate 
operation of a water-cooled condenser at an outlet temperature of 25 
deg.C, that no methanol is being produced during the manufacturing 
process, and that no hydrochloric acid is being used to produce WSR.

G. Monitoring Requirements

    Monitoring is required by the proposed standards to determine 
whether a BLR or wet strength resin process is in compliance. This 
monitoring is done either by: (1) Continuously measuring outlet mass 
flowrate and concentration, or by (2) continuously measuring a site-
specific operating parameter, the value of which is established by the 
owner or operator during the initial compliance test. The operating 
parameter value is defined as the minimum or maximum value established 
for a control device or process parameter that, if achieved by itself 
or in combination with one or more other operating parameter values, 
determines that an owner or operator is complying with the applicable 
emission limitation or standards. A summary of the monitoring 
requirements of the proposed standards is provided in Table 2.

                    Table 2.--Monitoring Requirements                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Emission source       Parameter monitored           Noncompliance     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLR process and                                                         
 storage*:                                                              
    Carbon adsorber   Continuous measurement    One-hour average outlet 
     controlled.       of outlet HAP             concentration is       
                       concentration using       greater than the       
                       Method 25A if possible    maximum concentration  
                       or Method 18 if           established during the 
                       speciation necessary.     compliance test.       
    Uncontrolled....  Continuous measurement    One-hour average outlet 
                       of outlet HAP             concentration is       
                       concentration using       greater than the       
                       Method 25A if possible    maximum concentration  
                       or Method 18 if           established during the 
                       speciation necessary.     compliance test.       
    Condenser         Continuous measurement    One-hour average exhaust
     controlled.       of outlet gas             gas temperature is     
                       temperature.              greater than the       
                                                 maximum temperature    
                                                 established during the 
                                                 compliance test.       
    Scrubber          Continuous measurement    One-hour average        
     controlled.       of scrubber liquid        scrubber flowrate is   
                       flowrate.                 below the minimum      
                                                 flowrate established   
                                                 during the compliance  
                                                 test.                  
    Flare controlled  Continuous verification   Loss of pilot flame.    
                       of pilot flame presence                          
                       with heat sensing                                
                       device such as a UV                              
                       sensor or thermocouple.                          
    Wastewater......  Flow rate, pH, and HAP    Monitored values are    
                       concentration measured    outside the range      
                       daily; TSS and BOD        established during     
                       measured biweekly.        initial compliance.    
    All air           Flow diversion: if        Presence of flow        
     pollution         bypass lines that could   detected in the line,  
     control devices.  divert flow from the      rupture of the car-    
                       control device to the     seal, or removed of the
                       atmosphere exist flow     lock-and-key must be   
                       must be monitored         reported in the        
                       continuously or the       quarterly reporting    
                       line must be secured      requirement of Sec.    
                       with a car-seal or lock-  63.10. Occurrence does 
                       and-key type              not establish          
                       configuration that is     noncompliance.         
                       inspected daily.                                 
Wet strength resin                                                      
 batch reactor:                                                         
    Condenser         Continuous measurement    Average outlet gas      
     controlled.       of outlet gas             temperature over the   
                       temperature during each   step is greater than   
                       step in batch process.    the maximum temperature
                                                 established from       
                                                 compliance             
                                                 calculations.          
    Carbon adsorber   Continuous measurement    Average outlet HAP      
     controlled        of outlet HAP             concentration over the 
     Uncontrolled.     concentration using       step is greater than   
                       Method 25A if possible    the maximum value      
                       or Method 18 if           established during the 
                       speciation necessary.     compliance test.       
    Scrubber          Measurement of average    Average scrubber        
     controlled.       outlet gas flowrate       flowrate over the step 
                       during each step in       is below the acceptable
                       batch process.            minimum flowrate       
                                                 established during the 
                                                 compliance test.       
    Wastewater......  pH, flow rate and HAP     Monitored values are    
                       concentration measured    outside the range      
                       daily; TSS and BOD        established during     
                       measured bi-weekly.       compliance.            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Monitoring of emissions from storage tanks is required only if         
  emissions are combined with other tank or process emissions prior to  
  discharge to the atmosphere.                                          

H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The owner or operator of any BLR or wet strength resin source 
subject to these standards would be required to fulfill all reporting 
requirements outlined in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63.

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

A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP

    These NESHAP would affect BLR and WSR facilities that are major 
sources in themselves, or constitute a portion of a major source. There 
are three existing manufacturers of BLR, all of which were assumed to 
be major sources for the purpose of developing these standards. (Final 
determination of major source status occurs as part of the compliance 
determination process). Of the 17 existing facilities that manufacture 
WSR, 9 were assumed to be considered major sources. The expected growth 
rate for the BLR industry and the wet strength resin industry is 
expected to be between 2 and 3 percent through 1995. Impacts associated 
with the control options are presented in Table 3 and Table 4; the 
options selected as proposed standards are footnoted.

                              Table 3.--Impacts of Meeting MACT Floors and Regulatory Alternatives for BLR Source Category                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Incremental 
                                            Baseline    Emission   Energy burden,  Wastewater  Capital costs,    Annual        Cost            cost     
            Regulatory option              emissions,  reduction,     106Btu/yr    generated,      $/1,000      costs, $  effectiveness,  effectiveness,
                                              Mg/yr       Mg/yr                      gal/yr                                    $/Mg            $/Mg     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT floor...............................         122          52             1.5   3,200,000             335    127,500           2,500  ..............
Regulatory Alternative 1a................         122          95             1.5   3,200,000             410    140,000           1,500             300
Regulatory Alternative 2.................         122          97             1.5   3,200,000             419    152,000           1,600           6,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThis option was chosen as the standard.                                                                                                                


                       Table 4.--Impacts of Meeting MACT Floors and Regulatory Alternatives for Wet Strength Resin Source Category                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Incremental 
                                               Baseline    Emission     Energy    Wastewater    Capital    Annual costs,       Cost            cost     
              Regulatory option               emissions,  reduction,    burden,   generated,   costs, $/         $        effectiveness,  effectiveness,
                                                 Mg/yr       Mg/yr    106 Btu/yr    tons/yr      1,000                         $/Mg            $/Mg     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT floora.................................          27           2           4           0         510         520,000       210,000    ..............
Regulatory Alternative I....................          27          16           4           0         648         572,000        35,750             3,700
Regulatory Alternative II...................          27          17           4           0         808         792,000        46,590           220,000
Equivalent standard.........................          27          14           0           0         138          52,000         3,700    ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThis option was chosen as the standard.                                                                                                                

B. Air Impacts

    The proposed standards would reduce HAP emissions from existing BLR 
sources by 95 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (105 tons per year [tons/yr]) 
from the baseline level, a reduction of 78 percent from baseline. 
Emissions of HAP from existing wet strength resin sources would 
decrease by 2 Mg/yr (2 tons/yr) if facilities elect to comply with the 
MACT floor, a reduction of 7 percent from baseline. If facilities elect 
to implement the alternative standard for the process vents, storage 
tanks, and wastewater source, HAP emissions would decrease by 14 Mg/yr 
(15 tons/yr), a reduction of 52 percent from baseline.

C. Water and Solid Waste Impacts

    The proposed standards will result in the generation of 3,200,000 
gallons of wastewater per year from the BLR source category, assuming 
gas absorbers (water scrubbers) are installed to control process vents 
and storage tank emissions. This amount of wastewater represents 
approximately 10 percent of the wastewater currently generated at the 
BLR production facility and a small portion of the total wastewater 
from the plant. EPA believes the additional wastewater can be treated 
on-site in the plant's existing wastewater treatment system. Wastewater 
impacts may be less if an alternative control measure is used to comply 
with the standard.
    There is no wastewater generated from the WSR production process, 
because emissions are controlled with condensers. There is also no 
solid waste generated from the BLR or WSR production processes.

D. Energy Impacts

    The proposed standards for the BLR source category would require an 
additional energy usage of 1.5 x 106 Btu per year (Btu/yr). 
Additional energy usage for the WSR source category is 4 x 106 
Btu/yr if the MACT floor is implemented; however, if facilities elect 
to comply with the alternative standard, the additional energy usage is 
negligible.

E. Cost Impacts

    The emission reductions that would be required by this regulation 
could be met using one or more of several different techniques. To 
determine costs, certain control scenarios were assumed. The scenarios 
used in costing were judged to be the most feasible scenarios possible 
for meeting the requirements of the proposed standards from a technical 
and cost standpoint. The total control cost includes the capital cost 
to install the control device, the costs involved in operating the 
control device, and costs associated with monitoring the device to 
ensure compliance. Monitoring costs include the cost to purchase and 
operate monitoring devices, as well as reporting and recordkeeping 
costs required to demonstrate compliance.
    The cost impacts of the proposed standards are summarized in Table 
3 and Table 4. Nationwide, the total annual cost of this standard to 
the BLR industry is $140,000.
    The total cost of this regulation to the wet strength resin 
industry is $520,000, assuming all facilities do not decide to achieve 
compliance with the alternative standard (controlling equipment leaks). 
If all facilities do decide to comply with the alternative standard, 
the total annual cost is $52,000.

F. Economic Impacts

    The economic impact analysis of this standard shows that the 
estimated price increase from compliance with the recommended 
alternative for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater is 0.05 
percent for BLR. Estimated reduction in market output for BLR is 0.08 
percent.
    For WSR, control of equipment leaks is not required, but is allowed 
as an alternative standard because it achieves an emission reduction 
which is equivalent to or better than the MACT floor level of control 
for vents, tanks, and wastewater. Assuming compliance with the 
alternative standard for WSR, the estimated price increase is 0.22 
percent and the estimated reduction in market output is 0.20 percent.
    No plant closures are expected from compliance with this set of 
alternatives. For more information, consult the background information 
document for these standards (see the Background Information Documents 
section near the beginning of this preamble).

VI. Rationale

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

    Emissions from BLR and WSR production occur from the following 
emission points: Storage tanks, process vents, equipment leaks, and 
wastewater. The proposed standards consider all of these emission 
points. Wastewater emissions from wet strength resin facilities are 
negligible, although they are included as an emission point.

B. Designation of Sources

    For these proposed standards, a source is defined as all HAP 
emission points within a facility that are related to the production of 
BLR or WSR, including process vents, storage tanks, wastewater, and 
equipment leaks. For the purpose of developing the standards, the 
emission points included in the definition of the source are divided 
into two portions:
    1. All process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission 
points; and
    2. Equipment leaks.
    The Administrator considered proposing a single emission limit that 
would apply to process vents, storage tanks, wastewater and equipment 
leaks. However, equipment leaks cannot be included with process vents, 
storage tanks, and wastewater because: (1) The negotiated standard for 
equipment leaks has no fixed performance level; and (2) no method 
currently exists for determining the magnitude of allowable emissions 
to assign for leaks. Without a method to determine the magnitude of 
allowable emissions to assign for equipment leaks, an averaging policy 
that included equipment leaks would be difficult to enforce. Therefore, 
the MACT floor and each regulatory alternative has two components--one 
for the combination of process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater, 
and another for equipment leaks. When methods are developed to assign 
allowable emission levels for particular leak points, the EPA will 
consider revising these standards to allow inclusion of equipment leaks 
in the emission limit.
    The Administrator also considered proposing separate emission 
limits for each type of emission point, but determined that this 
approach was not feasible because tanks, and wastewater emission points 
are intertwined by existing control strategies. For example, in 
existing BLR facilities, process vents and storage tank emissions are 
manifolded together and controlled using a common device. The device 
commonly used to control these emissions is a water scrubber, which 
functions in transferring potential HAP emissions from gaseous point 
sources to a wastewater emission source. Therefore, a single emission 
limit is proposed for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater 
combined to give facilities flexibility in complying with the standard. 
Specifying a single emission limit for this combination of emission 
points gives facilities the latitude to determine the best way for them 
to achieve emission reductions. Separate regulatory options were 
identified for equipment leaks for the reasons described at the 
beginning of this section.

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

1. BLR Source Category
    Because there are three existing facilities in the U.S. that 
produce BLR (all three are believed to be major sources), EPA used the 
average of the total production-based emission factors achieved by the 
three facilities to determine the MACT floors. Using this method, the 
production-based emission limit of 130 lb HAP/MM lb product was 
established as the MACT floor for the process vents, storage tanks, and 
wastewater portion of the source based on information from BLR 
facilities.
    Existing BLR facilities control equipment leak emissions using 
various leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. The impacts 
associated with the MACT floor and regulatory alternatives for sources 
at existing BLR facilities are presented in Table 3.
    Regulatory Alternative II represents the highest level of control 
identified for existing BLR sources. Because the MACT floor for the 
process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater portion of the source 
reflects a high level of control (the use of water scrubbers, carbon 
adsorbers, refrigerated condensers, and flares on process and storage 
tank vents, and biodegradation to reduce emissions from wastewater), 
only one area was identified as a possible additional controlled 
emission point: the generation of HAP-containing scrubber effluent, 
which is normally routed to the facility's wastewater treatment system. 
This wastewater could be controlled by recirculating scrubber effluent 
to the process. This measure would result in an emission limit of 125 
lb HAP/MM production. Therefore, this emission limit was chosen for 
Regulatory Alternative II for the process vents, storage tanks, and 
wastewater portion of the source. The control method proposed for the 
equipment leaks portion of the source was to implement the LDAR program 
specified in 40 CFR 63, subpart H, which represents a higher level of 
control than is currently practiced by any existing BLR facility.
    In evaluating Regulatory Alternative II, the Administrator 
considered the impacts (air, cost, water, and energy). Regulatory 
Alternative II was rejected because the incremental emission reduction 
over Regulatory Alternative I (2 Mg/yr [2 tons/yr]) is not significant 
considering the associated cost. Water and energy impacts were 
examined; however, because the magnitude of these impacts were small, 
they were not a major factor in the decision to reject Regulatory 
Alternative II.
    The first regulatory alternative above the MACT floor (Regulatory 
Alternative I) considered for existing BLR sources was to implement the 
LDAR program specified in 40 CFR 63, subpart H to control the equipment 
leaks portion of the source, and to require the MACT floor emission 
limit of 130 lb HAP/MM lb product for the process vents, storage tanks, 
and wastewater portion. The LDAR program of subpart H would achieve a 
higher level of control than the MACT floor; also, the cost of this 
control option was judged to be reasonable (see Table 3). Therefore, 
the Administrator selected Regulatory Alternative I as the standard for 
existing BLR sources.
2. WSR Source Category
    The MACT floor for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater for 
existing wet strength resin facilities was calculated based on data 
supplied by the nine major sources making up this source category. The 
MACT floor represents the average value of the lowest five production-
based emission totals from major sources in the industry. For the 
process vents, wastewater, and storage tanks portion of the source, the 
emission limit is 10 lb/MMlb production. Because no existing facility 
in the WSR source category controls equipment leak emissions, the MACT 
floor for the equipment leaks portion of the source represents an 
uncontrolled situation. Impacts associated with the MACT floor and 
regulatory alternatives for sources at existing wet strength resin 
facilities are presented in Table 4.
    Regulatory Alternative II, the most stringent alternative 
identified for existing WSR sources, would require an emission limit of 
5 lb HAP/MM lb product for the process vents, storage tanks, and 
wastewater portion of the source, as well as requiring the subpart H 
LDAR program for the equipment leaks portion of the source. In 
evaluating Regulatory Alternative II, the Administrator considered the 
impacts (air, cost, water, and energy). Regulatory Alternative II was 
rejected because the incremental emission reduction over Regulatory 
Alternative I, (1 Mg/yr) is not significant considering the associated 
cost. No additional water or energy impacts were associated with 
Regulatory Alternative II; therefore, water and energy impacts were not 
a factor in the decision to reject Regulatory Alternative II.
    Regulatory Alternative I, the first regulatory alternative above 
the MACT floor for existing WSR sources, would require the MACT floor 
emission limit of 10 lb HAP/MM lb production for the process vents, 
storage tanks, and wastewater portion of the source, and the LDAR 
program described in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H for the equipment leaks 
portion of the source. In evaluating Regulatory Alternative I, the 
Administrator considered the impacts (air, cost, water, and energy). 
Considering the emission reduction and cost of Regulatory Alternative 
I, the Administrator judged this option to be unreasonable. No 
additional water or energy impacts were associated with Regulatory 
Alternative I; therefore, water and energy impacts were not a factor in 
the decision to reject Regulatory Alternative I.
    Because both Regulatory Alternatives were judged to be 
unreasonable, the control levels proposed for both the combined process 
vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points, as well as the 
equipment leaks portions of existing WSR sources are the MACT floor 
levels. However, the Administrator proposes the implementation of the 
subpart H LDAR program for equipment leaks as an equivalent standard 
for existing WSR sources. The subpart H LDAR program represents an 
effective control option with reasonable associated costs for the 
equipment leaks portion of the source, with significant emission 
reductions, no negative water impacts, and negligible energy impacts. 
The subpart H LDAR program was chosen as an alternative standard 
because it achieves an emission reduction which is equivalent to or 
better than that achieved by the technology basis for the floor level 
of control for vents, tanks, and wastewater and because costs of 
implementation of this LDAR program are in many cases much more 
reasonable than those incurred from requiring compliance with the 
emission limit (see Table 4).

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

1. BLR Source Category
    For new sources, the MACT floor shall be no less stringent than the 
level representing the best controlled similar source. For new BLR 
sources, the MACT floor for the portion of the source consisting of the 
combination of process vents, storage tanks and wastewater is achieved 
by: (1) Routing process vents and storage tank vents to a common water 
scrubber with an efficiency of 99 percent; (2) recirculating scrubber 
effluent back to the process, and (3) Controlling HAP emissions from 
wastewater by 99 percent. This strategy represents a 99 percent 
emission reduction for this portion of the source. No regulatory 
alternatives more stringent than the new source MACT floor could be 
identified for this portion of new BLR sources.
    The MACT floor for the equipment leaks portion of new BLR sources 
is the LDAR program of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.
    Regulatory Alternative I for new BLR sources would require sources 
to implement the subpart H LDAR program to control equipment leaks, in 
addition to the MACT floor requirement for process vents, storage 
tanks, and wastewater. The subpart H LDAR program represents a cost-
effective control option for equipment leaks with significant emission 
reductions, no negative water impacts, and negligible energy impacts. 
For these reasons, the Administrator chose Regulatory Alternative I as 
the proposed standard for new BLR sources.
2. WSR Source Category
    The MACT floor for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater for 
new wet strength resin facilities is achieved by equipping the batch 
reactor with a cooling water condenser, and by operating the process 
without the use of hydrochloric acid and prohibiting the formation of 
methanol. This represents the highest level of control that is 
technically feasible. Therefore, no regulatory alternatives above the 
MACT floor could be identified.
    Because no existing facility in the WSR source category is 
controlling equipment leak emissions, the MACT floor represents an 
uncontrolled situation. Regulatory Alternative I for new WSR sources is 
the LDAR program described in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H for the 
equipment leaks portion of the source (the same as for existing 
facilities), and the MACT floor equipment standard described in the 
previous paragraph for the process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater 
portion of the source. In evaluating Regulatory Alternative I, the 
Administrator considered the impacts (air, costs, water, and energy). 
Considering the emission reduction and cost of Regulatory Alternative 
I, the Administrator judged this option to be unreasonable. No 
additional water or energy impacts were associated with Regulatory 
Alternative I; therefore, water and energy impacts were not a factor in 
the decision to reject Regulatory Alternative I.
    Because the only Regulatory Alternative above the MACT floor was 
judged to be unreasonable, the control levels proposed for both the 
combined process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points, 
as well as the equipment leaks portions of new WSR sources are the MACT 
floor levels. However, the Administrator proposes the implementation of 
the subpart H LDAR program for equipment leaks as an equivalent 
standard for new WSR sources. The subpart H LDAR program represents an 
effective control option with reasonable associated costs for the 
equipment leaks portion of the source, with significant emission 
reductions, no negative water impacts, and negligible energy impacts. 
The subpart H LDAR program was chosen as an alternative standard 
because it achieves an emission reduction which is equivalent to or 
better from that achieved by the technology basis for the floor level 
of control for vents, tanks, and water and because costs of 
implementation of this LDAR program are expected to be much more 
reasonable than those incurred from requiring compliance with the 
emission limit.

E. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards

    The formats of the proposed standards were selected in order to 
give facilities the most flexibility possible in achieving the level of 
control required by the selected regulatory alternative. Because the 
MACT floor for the process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater portion 
of the source reflects control by various methods, the format needs to 
allow sufficient flexibility for facilities to meet the level of the 
standard using the various control methods already in place to the 
extent possible.
    Of the formats considered (mass emission limits, percent 
concentration, percent reduction, equipment standards, work practice 
standards), the mass emission limit format was chosen because various 
combinations of controls can be employed among several emission points 
to achieve the same mass emission rate. Also, mass emission limits 
encourage facilities to reduce emissions through process changes, work 
practice changes, and other methods to avoid costly add-on controls. In 
this way, mass emission limits serve to encourage pollution prevention. 
An equipment standard format is not needed for this source because an 
emission limit can be established. Formats such as specifying a 
concentration or a percent reduction, offer no advantages over the 
emission limit format, and would be more cumbersome from an enforcement 
standpoint due to the different characteristics of the emission points 
that make up the source of process vents, storage tanks, and 
wastewater.
    For process vent, storage tank, and wastewater emission points 
within new sources, however, equipment standards have been proposed. An 
emission limit format cannot be used for these emission points within 
new sources because it would identify specific facilities' production 
levels, which are claimed as confidential business information. 
However, facilities would have the opportunity to employ other 
technologies to meet the standard by demonstrating equivalence.
    The EPA solicits comments on the equipment standard format of the 
standards for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater at new 
facilities. In particular, the EPA solicits comments on whether 
performance standards for vents, tanks, and wastewater at new 
facilities can be used without compromising confidential business 
information and whether operators can comply with performance standards 
for vents, tanks, and wastewater at new facilities without compromising 
confidential business information.
    The LDAR program of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H is a combination of 
an equipment standard/work practice format. Under section 112 of the 
Act, national emission standards must, whenever possible, take the 
format of a numerical emission standard. Typically, an emission 
standard is written in terms of an allowable emission rate, performance 
level, or allowable concentration. These types of standards require the 
direct measurement of emissions to determine compliance. For some 
emission points, emission standards cannot be prescribed because it is 
not feasible to measure emissions. Section 112(h)(2) recognizes this 
situation by defining two conditions under which it is not feasible to 
establish an emission standard. These conditions are: (1) If the 
pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and 
constructed to emit or capture the pollutant; or (2) if the application 
of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological and 
economic limitations. If an emission standard cannot be established, 
the EPA may instead establish a design, equipment, work practice, or 
operational standard or combination thereof.
    For equipment leak emission points, such as pumps and valves, EPA 
has previously determined that it is not feasible to prescribe or 
enforce emission standards. Except for those items of equipment for 
which standards can be set at a specific concentration, the only method 
of measuring emissions is total enclosure of individual items of 
equipment, collection of emissions for a specified time period, and 
measurement of the emissions. This procedure, known as bagging, is a 
time-consuming and prohibitively expensive technique considering the 
great number of individual items of equipment in a typical process 
unit. Moreover, this procedure would not be useful for routine 
monitoring and identification of leaking equipment for repair. 
Therefore, LDAR program of 40 CFR, subpart H, an equipment/work 
practice standard, was chosen for the equipment leaks emission point.

F. Selection of Compliance and Performance Testing Provisions and 
Monitoring Requirements

    The proposed regulation contains compliance provisions that require 
owners or operators to conduct an initial performance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards. As a means of 
demonstrating compliance with the standards following the initial 
performance test, the owner or operator must also establish source-
specific parameters based on the characteristics of the emission 
stream, process, or type of control device used. The Administrator 
determined that these provisions were necessary to meet the monitoring 
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
1. Testing and Monitoring
    Compliance is comprised of initial performance testing and 
continuous compliance verification, or monitoring. The proposed 
requirements for initial compliance testing and any periodic or 
continuous measurement to verify ongoing compliance are based on the 
emission stream characteristics that would be encountered either at the 
outlet of the control device or at the point of release to the 
atmosphere for uncontrolled emission streams. Often, an important 
factor to consider in evaluating emission stream characteristics is the 
type of control device that is preceding the emission stream. Also, the 
operating parameters of the device can be used as an indicator of the 
level of control of the device and therefore, the outlet emissions. The 
selection of appropriate test methods for initial and ongoing 
compliance, therefore, is related to both the characteristics of the 
stream and to the type of device used to control it. The discussion of 
both factors is presented below.
2. Emission Stream Characteristics
    An important characteristic to consider when evaluating measurement 
methods are whether the streams are from continuous sources or whether 
they are from batch sources. Streams that are from continuous sources 
would have minimal variation in characteristics; the test measurement 
method therefore can be intermittent in nature. For example, flowrate 
and concentration can be sampled on an intermittent basis to obtain an 
average emission value that presumably will not vary significantly. 
Batch emission streams, however, are expected to have wide variation in 
flowrate, composition, and conditions throughout the course of a batch 
(i.e., with time). Often, proportional sampling of flowrate and 
composition over the course of a batch to arrive at a total emission 
number over the entire batch is necessary. Alternatively, simultaneous 
measurement of flowrate and composition must be made to arrive at an 
instantaneous emission rate. Because these methods are difficult, an 
initial compliance test requiring concentration measurement is not 
recommended for most batch operations. Specifically for these NESHAP, 
equations are provided in the regulation to determine HAP emissions 
from the batch reactor used in WSR production.
    A second important characteristic of the emission stream to 
consider during selection of a test method is the composition. If 
organic material other than HAP are contained in the stream, it may be 
necessary to speciate the stream or at least identify the HAP 
constituents in the stream. This identification limits how continuously 
the stream can be sampled. The most common technology that will be used 
in identification is gas chromatography, specified in EPA Reference 
Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Gas chromatography, coupled 
with the quantification of material typically done with a flame-
ionization device (FID), EPA Reference Method 25A, can be done at sub-
minute intervals, but not continuously. However, if identification of 
organic species is not necessary, an FID alone can be used. This 
technology will provide a continuous reading of concentration.
3. Control Devices
    The devices used to abate HAP emissions will affect the outlet 
stream composition and conditions and therefore affect the degree of 
confidence of the initial and continuous compliance methods. Devices 
that are commonly used in the basic liquid resins and WSR industry to 
control process vents and storage tank emissions are condensers, gas 
absorbers (water scrubbers), carbon adsorbers, and flares. These 
devices differ from one another in the type of streams that they 
control and the outlet conditions of the streams.
    i. Condensers. In the case of condensers, which are usually applied 
to saturated emission streams and by design yield saturated streams, it 
can be assumed that the components will be present at levels 
corresponding to their saturated values (equilibrium) at the outlet 
conditions. This measure provides a worst-case estimate of emissions. 
Therefore, the direct measurement of concentration often may be 
foregone in lieu of the measurement of stream temperature and flow rate 
and subsequent calculation to yield mass emissions. For wet strength 
resin batch reactors, this is the required measurement to determine HAP 
concentration in both initial and continuous performance tests. Because 
the emission streams controlled by condensers in basic liquid resin 
manufacturing will be more likely to have multiple sources with 
numerous components that will affect the ability to predict HAP 
concentrations by measurement of secondary parameters, the direct 
measurement of concentration is required at least in the initial 
performance test. Thereafter, concentration measurements to establish 
continuous compliance may be reasonably approximated with a measurement 
of outlet gas temperature.
    ii. Gas Absorbers. Gas absorbers (water scrubbers), however, differ 
in that there is no parameter that can be measured and used to 
establish a limit of HAP concentration. Often, the streams routed to 
scrubbers are more dilute, and the control device functions in not only 
changing the conditions of the gas temperature like a condenser would 
do, but in employing concentration gradients to remove materials from 
gas streams. In order to predict the performance of a gas absorber, 
information must be known about the appropriate mass transfer 
coefficients for the specific system. Most often, the mass transfer 
coefficients are experimentally derived for specific applications and 
are usually functions of the mass velocities and contacting path 
variables. While it is possible to calculate the scrubber outlet 
compositions without mass transfer information by assuming that the 
amount of material transferred to the liquid is limited by the 
equilibrium-defined composition, this information is not indicative of 
the physical scrubber because it does not provide for the evaluation of 
the contacting path. Therefore, a direct measurement of composition is 
required during the initial performance test.
    Evaluation of continuous compliance need not be done by continuous 
direct measurement of HAP concentration from the scrubber effluent, 
however. Another parameter, the liquid to gas molar ratio through the 
scrubber, could be monitored to ensure required removal. The L/G ratio, 
which often reduces to the measurement of L, the liquid molar flow 
rate, because G, the gas molar flow rate is often constant, could be 
measured during the initial performance test to evaluate the 
sensitivity of the ratio with removal efficiency. Thereafter, the L/G 
ratio could be used to verify appropriate removal if the ratio remained 
within the limits established during the initial compliance test.
    iii. Carbon Adsorbers. Streams controlled by carbon adsorption will 
usually be diluted, compared to those controlled by condensers and 
scrubbers. No surrogate parameters have been identified as measures of 
HAP concentration or removal efficiencies. Therefore, a direct 
measurement of concentration will be required during the initial 
performance test as well as in continuous compliance monitoring.
    iv. Flares. Compliance testing for flares can be complicated by the 
formation of undesired products of combustion (including HAP) and the 
inability to further capture and control these byproducts. 
Nevertheless, if a facility chooses to use a flare as a control device, 
EPA has established flare combustion efficiency criteria that specify 
that 98 percent or greater combustion efficiency can be achieved 
provided that certain operating conditions are met. If a HAP is formed 
from combustion, the quantity formed must be considered when 
calculating control efficiency. These conditions prescribe that the 
flare must be operated with no visible emissions and with a flame 
present and that the heating value and exit velocity of the gas routed 
to the flare must be within certain ranges, depending upon whether the 
flares are steam-assisted.
    Additionally, the NESHAP general provisions provide for an initial 
performance test to determine whether the net heating value will fall 
within the applicable ranges for control at 98 percent. The performance 
test involves measuring the incoming gas flowrate and the concentration 
of combustible compounds (40 CFR 63.11) to determine net heating value. 
However, it appears that as the number of compounds in the stream 
increases, the determination of the net heating value becomes 
increasingly difficult. Also, in light of the fact that flares are 
often used to control discontinuous or upset conditions, the net 
heating value at any one time is subject to change. Continuously 
measuring the concentration of combustible compounds to determine 
heating value on a continuous basis is probably not feasible. 
Therefore, the enhanced monitoring method chosen for these standards is 
to require that the presence of a pilot flame be monitored 
continuously. Also, an initial measurement and characterization of the 
inlet mass emissions to the flare is required for two reasons:
    1. To determine the fraction of hazardous air pollutant emissions 
that are being controlled by the flare; and
    2. To determine the net heating value of the vent stream.
    v. Wastewater. Because air emissions from wastewater treatment 
systems cannot be collected and measured, certain parameters must be 
identified that indicate the emission rate from wastewater for 
monitoring purposes. The proposed methods for estimating wastewater 
emissions for initial compliance with the proposed standards for the 
emission source of process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater, as 
well as for identifying enhanced monitoring parameter values for 
wastewater, are those specified in 40 CFR 63.150(f)(5). The 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.150(f)(5) consist of monitoring specific 
wastewater treatment parameters and emission calculation methods. 
Monitoring of the following wastewater parameters is required: inlet 
flow rate, HAP concentration, pH, and biological oxygen demand. These 
parameters were chosen for monitoring because they can be used to 
determine wastewater treatment system performance.
    vi. Storage Tanks. Storage tank emissions vary greatly over time, 
which prohibits testing over reasonable periods of time. Therefore, no 
initial compliance test is proposed for this emission point, unless 
emissions are manifolded with process vents, in which case the 
compliance tests specified for process vents apply. Instead, the 
methods specified in 40 CFR 63.150(f)(3) are proposed to calculate 
emissions. Emissions would be calculated based on the facility's 
solvent usage records for the most recent 1-year period and divided by 
the amount of product produced during the same period. A 1-year period 
is necessary to reduce the effect of variation in solvent usage on the 
emission calculation. Because emissions are calculated from factors, 
and because storage tank emissions are not dependent on parameters that 
can be controlled, no continuous monitoring requirements are proposed 
for this emission point, except that facilities that control storage 
tank emissions must certify that such controls are in proper working 
order.
    vii. Equipment Leaks. Like wastewater emissions, equipment leak 
emissions occur in open areas and in most cases cannot feasibly be 
captured. Therefore, no performance test is required for the equipment 
leaks source. Instead, facilities must demonstrate that they have an 
LDAR program in place that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart H. No monitoring requirements are proposed for equipment leaks, 
as the proposed standard for equipment leaks is a work practice/
equipment standard.
5. Averaging Times
    i. Initial compliance. The standards for the process vents, storage 
tanks, and wastewater source at existing BLR and WSR production 
facilities are in the form of mass emission limits. Initial compliance 
is determined by adding the emissions per unit mass of product 
calculated for each process vent, storage tank, and wastewater emission 
point within the facility. For BLR production, a continuous process, a 
1-hour averaging time is specified for process vent compliance tests; 
the emission rate would be the average of the results of three 1-hour 
tests. For WSR production, typically a batch operation, the emission 
rates used to determine compliance would be the average of 3 tests 
taken over for 3 different batch runs. Longer averaging times are 
required for batch operations to minimize the effect of emissions that 
vary significantly with time.
    Storage tank emissions would be averaged over a period of 1 year, 
based on HAP usage records from the previous year, to minimize the 
effect of variation in solvent usage on the calculated emission rate. A 
monthly averaging time is required for wastewater, as specified in 40 
CFR 63.150(f)(5). Different averaging times are possible for different 
emission types because emissions are divided by the production rate for 
an equal time period. The resulting production-based emissions are then 
added together according to Equation 1 and compared with the mass 
emission limit to determine compliance.
    ii. Monitoring. In accordance with Sec. 63.8(c)(4) of the General 
Provisions, all continuous monitoring systems measuring either 
emissions or an operating parameter shall complete a minimum of one 
measurement cycle (sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each 
successive 15-minute period.
    BLR source category. For BLR manufacturers, the determination of 
compliance varies for each type of control or capture system. Owners 
and operators complying with the standard by using carbon adsorbers, 
condensers, incinerators, and total enclosures on continuous processes 
may be determined to be out of compliance with the standard if, for any 
1-hour period, the average operating parameter value exceeds or is less 
than the value established during the initial performance test, as 
applicable. A 1-hour averaging time is chosen to determine compliance 
because it parallels the length of time for each of the three test runs 
conducted for the initial performance test.
    WSR source category. Wet strength resins are produced in batch 
processes, during which emissions may vary significantly. Therefore, 
longer averaging times are necessary for WSR processes than for BLR 
processes. The averaging time proposed for WSR processes is the time 
required to complete one batch operation (typically about 8 hours). 
Because producers of WSR do not vary the production process from batch 
to batch, emissions data averaged over the course of one batch 
operation would be representative of the actual emissions from future 
batch runs.

G. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The owner or operator of any BLR or wet strength resin facility 
subject to these standards would be required to fulfill all reporting 
requirements outlined in the General Provisions 40 CFR part 63. No 
special considerations have been identified for these industries that 
would warrant additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

H. Operating Permit Program

    Under Title V of the Act, all HAP-emitting facilities will be 
required to obtain an operating permit. Oftentimes, emission limits, 
monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements are scattered 
among numerous provisions of State implementation plans (SIP's) or 
Federal regulations. As discussed in the proposed rule for the 
operating permit program published on May 10, 1991 (58 FR 21712), this 
new permit program would include in a single document all of the 
requirements that pertain to a single source. Once a State's permit 
program has been approved, each facility containing that source within 
that State must apply for and obtain an operating permit. If the State 
wherein the source is located does not have an approved permitting 
program, the owner or operator of a source must submit the application 
under the proposed General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the 
proposed standard in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air 
Act. Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the proposed 
standards for epoxy resins production and non-nylon polyamides 
production should contact EPA at the address given in the ADDRESSES 
section of this preamble. Oral presentations will be limited to 15 
minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written statement 
before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements 
should be addressed to the Air Docket Section address given in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble and should refer to Docket No. A-92-
37.
    A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be 
available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours 
at EPA's Air Docket Section in Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES section of 
this preamble).

B. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
submitted to or otherwise considered by EPA in the development of this 
proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are:
    1. To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate 
documents so that they can intelligently and effectively participate in 
the rulemaking process; and
    2. To serve as the record in case of judicial review (except for 
interagency review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A))).

C. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    1. Have an annual effect of the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
this Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified 
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within 
the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action for 
OMB review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or 
recommendations will be documented in the public record.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1681.01), and a copy may be obtained 
from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M Street SW., 
(2136), Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. The public 
reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to 
average 600 hours per source, including time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U. S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any 
OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements 
contained in this proposal.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA 
to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small business 
``entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed 
regulation would have a significant economic impact on 20 percent or 
more of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis must be 
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines for regulations like this one 
whose start action notifications (SAN's) were filed before April 1992 
indicate that an economic impact should be considered significant if it 
meets one of the following criteria:
    1. Compliance increases annual production costs by more than 5 
percent, assuming costs are passed onto consumers;
    2. Compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities are 
at least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of sales 
for large entities;
    3. Capital costs of compliance represent a ``significant'' portion 
of capital available to small entities, considering internal cash flow 
plus external financial capabilities; or
    4. Regulatory requirements are likely to result in closure of small 
entities.
    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. All of the affected BLR and WSR producers are large enough 
not to satisfy the criteria for a small business. Consequently, no 
significant small business impacts will result from compliance with 
these standards.

F. Miscellaneous

    In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this 
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory 
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. 
The Administrator will welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed 
regulation, including health, economic and technical issues, and on the 
proposed test methods.
    This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of 
promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as 
evaluation of the residual health and environmental risks, any overlap 
with other programs, the existence of alternative methods, 
enforceability, improvements in emission control technology and health 
data, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 29, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-10973 Filed 5-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P