Federal Register, Volume 60 Issue 112 (Monday, June 12, 1995)

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 112 (Monday, June 12, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30801-30817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13924]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5217-4]
RIN 2060-AD-56

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Butyl Rubber Production, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production,
Ethylene-Propylene Elastomers Production, Hypalon^{TM Production,
Neoprene Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production, Polybutadiene
Rubber Production, Polysulfide Rubber Production, and Styrene-Butadiene
Rubber and Latex Production (Group 1 Polymers and Resins)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed rule would reduce emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from existing and new facilities that manufacture one
or more of the following elastomers: Butyl rubber (BR), epichlorohydrin
elastomers (EPI), ethylene-propylene elastomers (EPR),
hypalon (HYP), neoprene (NEO), nitrile butadiene rubber
(NBR), polybutadiene rubber (PBR), polysulfide rubber (PSR), and
styrene-butadiene rubber and latex (SBR). The EPA is in the process of
developing standards for a wide range of types of polymers and resin
production facilities. The materials covered by this proposed rule are
elastomers used to make a variety of synthetic rubber products
including tires, hoses, belts, footwear, adhesives, caulks, wire
insulation, seals, floor tiles, and latexes. In the production of
elastomers, a variety of HAP are used as monomers or process solvents.
The HAP emitted by the facilities covered by this proposed rule include
n-hexane, styrene, 1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, methyl chloride,
hydrogen chloride, carbon tetrachloride, chloroprene, and toluene. Some
of these pollutants are considered to be probable human carcinogens
when inhaled and all can cause toxic effects following exposure. The
proposed rule is estimated to reduce emissions of these pollutants by
over 6,500 Mg/yr. The emission reductions achieved by these standards,
when combined with the emission reductions achieved by other similar
standards, will achieve the primary goal of the Clean Air Act, which is
to ``enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote
the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its
population.''
The proposed rule implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (1990 Amendments), which requires the Administrator
to regulate emissions of HAP listed in section 112(b) of the 1990
Amendments. The intent of this rule is to protect the public by
requiring the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP from new
and existing major sources, taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality, health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 11,
1995.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by July 3, 1995, a public hearing will be held on July
12, 1995 beginning at 10 a.m. Persons interested in attending the
hearing should call Ms. Marguerite Thweatt at (919) 541-5607 to verify
that a hearing will be held.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact the EPA by June 27, 1995 by contacting Ms.
Marguerite Thweatt, Organic Chemicals Group, (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5607.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air Docket Section (LE-131), Attention: Docket No. A-92-
44, 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. The public hearing, if required, will be
held at the EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
The docket is located at the above address in room M-1500,
Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be [[Page 30802]] inspected from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; telephone number (202) 260-
7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed rule, contact Mr. Leslie Evans at (919) 541-5410, Organic
Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed regulatory text and the
rationale for selection of the different components of the standard are
not included in this Federal Register notice. The regulatory text is
available in Docket No. A-92-44, or from the EPA contact person
designated in this notice. The proposed regulatory language is also
available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) on the EPA's
electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The service is
free, except for the cost of a telephone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for
up to a 14,400 bps modem. If more information on TTN is needed, call
the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
In addition to the proposed regulatory text, the Basis and Purpose
Document, which contains the rationale for the various components of
the standard, is available in the docket and on the TTN. This document
is entitled Hazardous Air Pollutant emissions from Process Units in the
Elastomer Manufacturing Industry--Basis and Purpose Document for
Proposed Standards, May 1995, and has been assigned document number
EPA-453-R-95-006a.
Other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review
in the docket. Some of these memoranda have been compiled into a single
document, the Supplementary Information Document (SID), to allow
interested parties more convenient access to the information. The SID
is available in the docket (Docket No. A-92-44, Category II-A), and
from the EPA Library by calling (919) 541-2777. The document is
entitled Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Process Units in the
Elastomer Manufacturing Industry--Supplementary Information Document
for Proposed Standards, May 1995, and has been assigned document number
EPA-453/R-95-005a.
In some cases, technical analyses conducted during the development
of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, or HON, were indirectly relied upon in
the development of today's proposed rule. The HON was promulgated on
April 22, 1994 (59 FR 19402), and supporting information for the HON is
available in the Air Dockets A-90-19 through A-90-23.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. List of Source Categories
II. A Summary of Considerations Made in Developing This Rule
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 Rule
A. Source Categories to be Regulated
B. Relationship to Other Rules
C. Pollutants to be Regulated
D. Affected Emission Points
E. Format of the Standards
F. Proposed Standards
G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
V. Discussion of Major Issues
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. Facilities Affected by these NESHAP
B. Primary Air Impacts
C. Other Environmental Impacts
D. Energy Impacts
E. Cost Impacts
F. Economic Impacts
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Miscellaneous

I. List of Source Categories

Section 112 of the 1990 Amendments requires that the EPA evaluate
and control emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is achieved through
promulgation of emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f) and
work practice and equipment standards under section 112(h) for
categories of sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, the EPA
published an initial list of major and area source categories to be
regulated, as required under section 112(c) of the 1990 amendments.
Included on that list were major sources emitting HAP from the
production of BR, EPI, EPR, HYP, NEO, NBR, PBR, PSR, and SBR. These
source categories are combined under today's proposed rule because of
similarities in process operations, emission characteristics, and
control device applicability and costs. For the purpose of this notice,
these nine source categories are collectively referred to as elastomer
source categories.
The EPA identified a total of 35 plant sites producing one or more
of the elastomers listed. At eight plant sites, elastomers from two or
more subcategories are produced. For example, at one plant site there
is one process producing EPR and another process producing PBR.
All of the facilities considered in the analysis supporting today's
proposed rule are believed to be major sources according to the 1990
Amendments criterion of having the potential to emit 10 tons per year
of any one HAP or 25 tons per year of combined HAP. The proposed rule
would apply to all major sources that produce any of the nine types of
elastomers identified in this notice. Area sources would not be subject
to this proposed rule.
In developing the background information to support the proposed
rule, the EPA chose to subcategorize three of the nine source
categories for purposes of analyzing the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) floors and regulatory alternatives. A fourth
subcategory was created by combining two processes that had virtually
identical facilities, processes, and HAP emissions. Subcategorization
was necessary to reflect major variations in production methods, raw
material usage and/or HAP emissions that potentially affect the
applicability of controls. Although the resulting level of the standard
was identical for many subcategories, note that all technical analyses
were conducted on a subcategory basis to determine the appropriate
level of the standard. Table 1 summarizes the subcategories developed.

II. A Summary of Considerations Made in Developing This Rule

The Clean Air Act was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance
the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public
health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' [the
ACT, Sec. 101(b)(1)]. As such, this proposed regulation would protect
the public health by reducing emissions of HAP from elastomer
production.

[[Page 30803]]
Table. 1.--Subcategorization of Group I Polymers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Source category Subcategory sources in
subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butyl Rubber................ Butyl Rubber (BR)........... 1
Halobutyl Rubber (HBR)...... 1
Epichlorohydrin Rubber (EPI) None........................ 1
Ethylene Propylene Rubber None........................ 5
(EPR).
Hypalon (HYP)..... None........................ 1
Neoprene (NEO).............. None........................ 3
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber.... Nitrile Butadiene Rubber by 4
Emulsion (NBR).
Nitrile Butadiene Latex 3
(NBL).
Polysulfide Rubber (PSR).... None........................ 1
Polybutadiene Rubber........ Polybutadiene Rubber and 5
Styrene Butadiene Rubber by
Solution (PBR/SBRS).
Styrene Butadiene Rubber.... Styrene Butadiene Rubber by 4
Emulsion (SBRE).
Styrene Butadiene Latex 15
(SBL).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pollutants emitted by Polymer and Resin I sources that are listed
in Section 112(b)(1) include n-hexane, styrene, 1,3-butadiene,
acrylonitrile, methyl chloride, carbon tetrachloride, chloroprene, and
toluene. Some of these pollutants are considered to be probable human
carcinogens when inhaled, and all can cause reversible and irreversible
toxic effects following exposure. These effects include respiratory and
skin irritation, effects upon the eye, various systemic effects
including effects upon the liver, kidney, heart and circulatory
systems, neurotoxic effects, and in extreme cases, death.

These effects vary in severity based on the level and length of
exposure and are influenced by source-specific characteristics such as
emission rates and local meteorological conditions. Health impacts are
also dependent on multiple factors that affect human variability such
as genetics, age, health status (e.g., presence of pre-existing
disease) and lifestyle. The EPA does not have sufficient detailed data
to conduct an intensive analysis to determine the actual population
exposures to the HAP and resulting health effects around these
facilities. This rule is technology-based; i.e., based on maximum
achievable control technology. In addition, it is not a ``significant''
rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and a benefits analysis is
not required. Considering these factors, the EPA chose not to expend
the resources required to collect additional data and conduct an
intensive health impacts analysis. Therefore, the EPA does not know the
extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the
populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the
adverse effects do occur, the proposed standard will substantially
reduce emissions and exposures to the level achievable with MACT.

Due to the volatility and relatively low potential for
bioaccumulation of these pollutants, air emissions are not expected to
deposit on land or water and cause subsequent adverse health or
ecosystem effects.

The alternatives considered in the development of this regulation,
including those alternatives selected as standards for new and existing
elastomer sources, are based on process and emissions data received
from every existing elastomer facility known to be in operation at the
time of the initial data collection. The EPA met with industry several
times to discuss this data. In addition, facilities and State
regulatory authorities had the opportunity to comment on draft versions
of the regulation and to provide additional information. Several
facilities did provide comments; these comments were considered, and in
some cases, today's proposed standards reflect these comments. Of major
concern to industry were the reporting and recordkeeping burden and the
requirements for wastewater control.

The proposed standards give existing facilities 3 years from the
date of promulgation to comply. This is the maximum amount of time
allowed under the Clean Air Act. New sources are required to comply
with the standard upon start-up. The EPA sees no reason why new
facilities would not be able to comply with the requirements of the
standards upon startup. The number of existing sources affected by this
rule is less than 50; therefore, the EPA does not believe that required
retrofits or other actions cannot be achieved in the time frame
allotted.

Included in the proposed rule are methods for determining initial
compliance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that
sources will comply with the standards both initially and over time.
However, the EPA has made every effort to simplify the requirements in
the rule. The Agency has also attempted to maintain consistency with
existing regulations by either incorporating text from existing
regulations or referencing the application sections, depending on which
method would be least confusing for a given situation.
As described in the Basis and Purpose document, regulatory
alternatives were considered that included a combination of
requirements equal to, and above, the MACT floor. Cost-effectiveness
was a factor considered in evaluating options above the floor; in cases
where options more stringent than the floor were selected, they were
judged to have a reasonable cost effectiveness. For EPR, PBR/SBR (by
solution), and SBR (by emulsion) the estimated cost effectiveness was
found to be relatively high at the MACT floor level due to the
requirements for process back-end operations. However, the back-end
provisions of the regulation contain several options for compliance
that will allow facilities to select the most cost-effective option
based on facility-specific considerations.
Representatives from other interested EPA offices and programs, as
well as representatives from State regulatory agencies, are included in
the regulatory development process as members of the Work Group. The
Work Group is involved in the regulatory development process, and must
review and concur with the regulation before proposal and promulgation.
Therefore, the EPA believes that the implications to other EPA offices
and programs have been [[Page 30804]] adequately considered during the
development of these standards.

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

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

Section 112 of the 1990 Amendments gives the EPA the authority to
establish national standards to reduce air emissions from sources that
emit one or more HAP. Section 112(b) contains a list of HAP to be
regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the EPA to use this
pollutant list to develop and publish a list of source categories for
which NESHAP will be developed. The EPA must list all known source
categories and subcategories of ``major sources'' (defined below) that
emit one or more of the listed HAP. A major source is defined in
section 112(a) as any stationary source or group of stationary sources
located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or
has the potential to emit in the aggregate, considering controls, 10
tons per year or more of any one HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any
combination of HAP. This list of source categories was published in the
Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and includes BR, EPI,
EPR, HYP, NEO, NBR, PBR, PSR, and SBR.
Sources with a potential to emit at or greater than major source
levels shall abide by the provisions of this rule unless they accept
and comply with federally enforceable limitations on that potential
which reduce their potential to emit to less than major source levels.
The most common mechanisms for ensuring that these limitations are
federally enforceable are Title V, State Implementation Plan (SIP),
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), or New Source Review
(NSR) permits. The Agency is currently reviewing what other mechanisms
may be available.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both
new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out
in section 112(d) of the 1990 Amendments. The statute requires the
standards to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of
HAP that is achievable for new or existing sources. This control level
is referred to as MACT. When the selection of MACT considers control
levels more stringent than the MACT floor (described below), its
selection must reflect consideration of the cost of achieving the
emission reduction, any non-air quality, health, and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
The MACT floor is the least stringent level allowed for MACT
standards. For new sources, the standards for a source category or
subcategory ``shall not be less stringent than the emission control
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as
determined by the Administrator'' (section 112(d)(3)). Existing source
standards shall be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing
sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources or the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources
for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (section
112(d)(3)). These two minimum levels of control define the MACT floor
for new and existing sources.

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Source Categories To Be Regulated

Today's proposed standards would regulate HAP emissions from
facilities in one of the 12 elastomer subcategories presented in Table
1, provided that a facility is a major source or is located at a plant
site that is a major source. For the proposed rule, an affected source
is defined as one of the following:

All HAP emission points at a facility producing butyl
rubber that are associated with butyl rubber production,
All HAP emission points at a facility producing
epichlorohydrin elastomer that are associated with epichlorohydrin
elastomer production,
All HAP emission points at a facility producing
ethylene propylene rubber that are associated with ethylene
propylene rubber production,
All HAP emission points at a facility producing
halobutyl rubber that are associated with halobutyl rubber
production,
All HAP emission points at a facility producing
Hypalon^{TM that are associated with Hypalon^{TM production,
All HAP emission points at a facility producing
neoprene that are associated with neoprene production,
All HAP emission points at a facility producing nitrile
butadiene latex that are associated with nitrile butadiene latex
production,
All HAP emission points at a facility producing nitrile
butadiene rubber that are associated with nitrile butadiene rubber
production,
All HAP emission points at a facility producing
polybutadiene rubber and/or styrene butadiene rubber using a
solution process that are associated with production of
polybutadiene rubber and/or styrene butadiene rubber using a
solution process,
All HAP emission points at a facility producing
polysulfide rubber that are associated with polysulfide production,
All HAP emission points at a facility producing styrene
butadiene latex that are associated with styrene butadiene latex
production, and
All HAP emission points at a facility producing styrene
butadiene rubber using an emulsion process that are associated with
styrene butadiene rubber production using an emulsion process.

In addition, if a facility produces elastomer products from more than
one subcategory in the same equipment, then that facility is a single
affected source.

The EPA is aware of some polymeric resin and copolymer products
that are manufactured using similar chemicals and processes that are in
some ways similar to the processes used in the manufacture of the
elastomers covered by today's proposed rule. Several styrene butadiene,
non-elastomer, resins and copolymers are included in this group. The
EPA does not intend for today's proposed regulation to cover the
production of these materials, which are often high conversion, block
copolymers, with different end uses from the elastomers. However, the
development of specific criteria to distinguish between elastomers and
resins/copolymers has proven to be difficult. Therefore, the EPA is
requesting comments on methods to clearly make this distinction.

B. Relationship to Other Rules

Sources subject to the proposed rule are also subject to other
existing rules. In some cases, the proposed rule supersedes existing
rules and affected sources are no longer required to comply with the
existing rule. In other cases, there is no conflict between the
existing rule and the proposed rule, and in these cases, the affected
source must comply with both rules.
Sources subject to the proposed rule and subject to the NESHAP for
Certain Processes Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment
Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart I) are required to continue to comply
with subpart I until the compliance date of the proposed rule. After
the compliance date of the proposed rule, compliance with the proposed
rule will constitute compliance with subpart I.
Sources subject to the proposed rule may have storage vessels
subject to the NSPS for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (40 CFR
part 60, subpart Kb). After the compliance date for the proposed rule,
such storage vessels are only subject to the proposed rule and are no
longer required to comply with subpart Kb.
Sources subject to the proposed rule may have cooling towers
subject to the [[Page 30805]] NESHAP for Industrial Cooling Towers (40
CFR part 63, subpart Q). There is no conflict between the requirements
of subpart Q and the proposed rule. Therefore, sources subject to both
rules must comply with both rules.

C. Pollutants To Be Regulated

The source categories covered by the proposed rule emit a variety
of HAP. The most significant emissions are of the following HAP: n-
hexane, styrene, 1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, methyl chloride,
hydrogen chloride, carbon tetrachloride, chloroprene, and toluene.
Today's proposed standards would regulate emissions of these compounds,
as well as all other HAP that are emitted.

D. Affected Emission Points

Emissions from the following types of emission points (i.e.,
emission source types) are being covered by the proposed rule: Storage
vessels, ``front-end'' process vents, process ``back-end'' operations,
equipment leaks, and wastewater operations. The process ``front-end''
includes pre-polymerization, reaction, stripping, and material recovery
operations; and the process ``back-end'' includes all operations after
stripping (predominately drying and finishing).

E. Format of the Standards

As discussed in more detail in Section IV.F, Proposed Standards,
the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) (subparts F, G, and H of 40 CFR part
63) and the Batch Processes Alternative Control Techniques (ACT)
document (EPA 453/R-93-017, November 1993) provided a basis for
selection of the proposed formats. In most instances, the format of
today's proposed standards is the same as those found in the HON and
Batch Processes ACT. The following paragraphs summarize the selected
formats, including those that are different from the HON and Batch
Processes ACT. The formats and their selection are discussed in more
detail in the Basis and Purpose Document for this proposed regulation.
For storage vessels, the format of today's proposed standards is
dependent on the method selected to comply with the standards. If tank
improvements (e.g., internal or external floating roofs with proper
seals and fittings) are selected, the format is a combination of
design, equipment, work practice, and operational standards. If a
closed vent system and control device are selected, the format is a
combination of design and equipment standards.
For front-end process vents, the format of today's proposed
standards is also dependent on the method selected to comply with the
standards. If a flare is selected, the format is a combination of
equipment and operating specifications. If a control device other than
a flare is used, the formats are a percent reduction and an outlet
concentration.
For back-end process emissions, today's proposed standards are
limits on the amount of residual HAP in the raw polymer product being
fed to the back-end operation, in units of weight of HAP per weight of
crumb rubber dry weight or latex. The format of today's proposed
standards are dependent on the method selected to comply with the
standards. If sampling is the method selected, the format is a weekly
weighted average HAP content of all polymer processed in the stripping
operations. The EPA is proposing test methods to determine residual HAP
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. If add-on control is selected,
the format is the reduction of HAP emissions to a level that would be
equivalent to the emission reduction that would be achieved using
stripping.
For equipment leaks, today's proposed standards incorporate several
formats: Equipment, design, base performance levels (e.g., maximum
allowable percent leaking valves), work practices, and operational
practices. Different formats are necessary for different types of
equipment, because of the nature of the equipment, available control
techniques, and applicability of the measurement method. In addition, a
work practice standard is adopted for equipment leaks resulting in the
emission of HAP from cooling towers at all facilities producing a
listed elastomer. This standard requires a leak detection and repair
program to detect and repair leaks of HAP into cooling tower water.
For wastewater streams requiring control, today's proposed
standards incorporate several formats: Equipment, operational, work
practice, and emission standards. The particular format selected
depends on which portion of the wastewater stream is involved. For
transport and handling equipment, the selected format is a combination
of equipment standards and work practices. For the reduction of HAP
from the wastewater stream itself, several alternative formats are
included, including five alternative numerical emission limit formats
(overall percent reduction for total volatile organic HAP (VOHAP),
individual HAP percent reduction, effluent concentration limit for
total VOHAP, individual VOHAP effluent concentration limits, and mass
removal for HAP) and equipment design and operation standard for a
steam stripper. For vapor recovery and destruction devices other than
flares, the format is a weight percent reduction. For flares, the
format is a combination of equipment and operating specifications.

F. Proposed Standards

The standards being proposed for storage vessels, continuous front-
end process vents, equipment leaks, and wastewater are the same as
those promulgated for the corresponding emission source types at
facilities subject to the HON. Also included are standards for two
emission source types not covered by the HON, batch front-end process
vents and process back-end operations. The batch front-end process vent
applicability and control requirements are based on the approach
described in the Batch Processes ACT. The standards being proposed
today for process back-end emissions are primarily based on State
permit conditions that restrict the amount of residual HAP in the raw
polymer product that is sent to the back-end operations.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the level of control being proposed for
new and existing sources, respectively. Where the level of control is
the same as the HON for storage vessels, equipment leaks, and
wastewater, this is indicated in the table as ``HON.'' When ``HON/ACT''
is used in the table, the level of control for continuous front-end
process vents is equal to the HON level of control, and the level of
control for batch front-end process vents is equal to the 90 percent
control level from the Batch Processes ACT. The following sections
describe today's proposed standards in more detail, by emission source
type. The rationale on which regulatory components are based is
summarized in the Basis and Purpose Document, which is available as
described in the introductory material of this Preamble.

[[Page 30806]]
Table 2.--Summary of Proposed Standards for Existing Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of proposed standard ^{a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Back-end process
Storage Front-end process vents emissions Wastewater Equipment leaks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Br, HBR.......................................... HON HON/ACT,^{b exempting No control.......... NON HON
halogenated vent streams
controlled by flare of
boiler before porposal
date.
EPI, HYP, NEO, NBL, NBR, PSR, SBL................ HON HON/ACT.................. No control.......... HON HON
EPR, PBR/SBRS,SBRE............................... HON HON/ACT.................. MACT floor residual HON HON
HAP limit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a HON--the level of the standard is equivalent to existing source provisions of subpart G of 40 CFR 63 for storage and wastewater, and subpart H of 40
CFR 63 for equipment leaks.
^{b HON/ACT--the level of the standard for continuous front-end process vents is equal to the existing source process vent provisions in subpart G of 40
CFR 63, and the level of the standard for batch front-end process vents is equal to the 90 percent control level from the Batch Processes ACT.

Table 3.--Summary of Proposed Standards For New Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Back-end process
Storage Front-end process vents emissions Wastewater Equipment leaks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BR, EPI, HBR, HYP, NEO, NBL, NBR, SBL............ New source HON ^{a New source HON/ACT ^{b..... no control.......... New source HON.. New source HON.
EPR, PBR/SBRS, SBRE.............................. New source HON.. New source HON/ACT....... New source floor New source HON.. New source HON.
residual HAP limit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a HON--the level of the standard is equivalent to new source provisions of subpart G of 40 CFR 63 for storage and wastewater, and subpart H of 40 CFR 63
for equipment leaks.
^{b HON/ACT--the level of the standard for continuous front-end process vents is equal to the new source process vent provisions in subpart G of 40 CFR
63, and the level of the standard for batch front-end process vents is equal to the 90 percent control level from the Batch Processes ACT.

1. Storage Vessels
For all subcategories, the storage vessel requirements are
identical to the HON storage vessel requirements in subpart G. A
storage vessel means a tank or other vessel that is associated with an
elastomer product process unit and that stores a liquid containing one
or more organic HAP. The proposed rule specifies assignment procedures
for determining whether a storage vessel is associated with an
elastomer product process unit. The storage vessel provisions do not
apply to the following: (1) Vessels permanently attached to motor
vehicles, (2) pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kpa (29.7 psia), (3) vessels with capacities smaller than 38 m^{3
(10,000 gal), (4) wastewater tanks, and (5) vessels storing liquids
that contain organic HAP only as impurities. An impurity is produced
coincidentally with another chemical substance and is processed, used,
or distributed with it.
In addition to those vessels that do not meet the definition of
storage vessels, today's proposed standards exempt certain storage
vessels containing latex. Specifically, storage vessels containing a
latex, located downstream of the stripping operations, are exempt from
the storage vessel requirements of the proposed rule.
The owner or operator must determine whether a storage vessel is
Group 1 or Group 2; Group 1 storage vessels require control. The
criteria for determining whether a storage vessel is Group 1 or Group 2
are shown in Table 4, and are the same as the HON criteria.

Table 4.--Group 1 Storage Vessel Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel Capacity (cubic meters) Vapor Pressure^{a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing sources
75 capacity < 151........................ 13.1
151 capacity............................. 5.2
New sources
38 capacity < 151........................ 13.1
151 capacity............................. 0.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP at storage
temperature.

The storage provisions require that one of the following control
systems be applied to Group 1 storage vessels: (1) An internal floating
roof with proper seals and fittings; (2) an external floating roof with
proper seals and fittings; (3) an external floating roof converted to
an internal floating roof with proper seals and fittings; or (4) a
closed vent system with a 95-percent efficient control device. The
storage provisions give details on the types of seals and fittings
required. Monitoring and compliance provisions include periodic visual
inspections of vessels, roof seals, and fittings, as well as internal
inspections. If a closed vent system and control device is used, the
owner or operator must establish appropriate monitoring procedures.
Reports and records of inspections, repairs, and other information
necessary to determine compliance are also required by the storage
provisions. No controls are required for Group 2 storage vessels.
2. Front-End Process Vents
There are separate provisions in the proposed rule for front-end
process vents that originate from unit operations operated in a
continuous mode, and those from unit operations operated in a batch
mode. An affected source could be subject to both the continuous and
[[Page 30807]] batch front-end process vent provisions if front-end
operations at an elastomer production process unit consist of a
combination of continuous and batch unit operations. The continuous
provisions would be applied to those vents from continuous unit
operations, and the batch provisions to vents from batch unit
operations.
a. Continuous Front-End Process Vents. The provisions in the
proposed rule for continuous front-end process vents are the same as
the HON process vent provisions in subpart G. Continuous front-end
process vents are gas streams that originate from continuously operated
units in the front-end of an elastomer process, and include gas streams
discharged directly to the atmosphere and gas streams discharged to the
atmosphere after diversion through a product recovery device. The
continuous front-end process vent provisions apply only to vents that
emit gas streams containing more than 0.005 weight-percent HAP.
A Group 1 continuous front-end process vent is defined as a
continuous front-end process vent with a flow rate greater than or
equal to 0.005 scmm, an organic HAP concentration greater than or equal
to 50 ppmv, and a total resource effectiveness (TRE) index value less
than or equal to 1.0. The continuous front-end process vent provisions
require the owner or operator of a Group 1 continuous front-end process
vent stream to: (1) Reduce the emissions of organic HAP using a flare;
(2) reduce emissions of organic HAP by 98 weight-percent or to a
concentration of 20 ppmv or less; or (3) achieve and maintain a TRE
index above 1. Performance test provisions are included for Group 1
continuous front-end process vents to verify that the control device
achieves the required performance.
The organic HAP reduction is based on the level of control achieved
by the reference control technology. Group 2 continuous front-end
process vent streams with TRE index values between 1.0 and 4.0 are
required to monitor those process vent streams to ensure those streams
do not become Group 1, which require control.
The owner or operator can calculate a TRE index value to determine
whether each process vent is a Group 1 or Group 2 continuous front-end
process vent, or the owner or operator can elect to comply directly
with the control requirements without calculating the TRE index. The
TRE index value is determined after the final recovery device in the
process or prior to venting to the atmosphere. The TRE calculation
involves an emissions test or engineering assessment and use of the TRE
equations in Sec. 63.115 of subpart G.
The rule encourages pollution prevention through product recovery
because an owner or operator of a Group 1 continuous front-end process
vent may add recovery devices or otherwise reduce emissions to the
extent that the TRE becomes greater than 1.0 and the Group 1 continuous
front-end process vent becomes a Group 2 continuous front-end process
vent.
Group 1 halogenated streams controlled using a combustion device
must vent the emissions from the combustor to an acid gas scrubber or
other device to limit emissions of halogens prior to venting to the
atmosphere. The control device must reduce the overall emissions of
hydrogen halides and halogens by 99 percent or reduce the outlet mass
emission rate of total hydrogen halides and halogens to less than 0.45
kg/hr.
The proposed rule exempts certain halogenated process vent streams
from the requirement to control the halogens at the exit from a
combustion device. Specifically, halogenated continuous front-end
process vents at affected sources producing butyl or halobutyl rubber
are exempt from the requirements to control hydrogen halides and
halogens from the outlet of combustion devices. However, the proposed
rule requires that these vent streams be controlled in accordance with
the other Group 1 requirements for continuous front-end process vents.
Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions necessary to
demonstrate compliance are also included in the continuous front-end
process vent provisions. Compliance with the monitoring provisions is
based on a comparison of daily average monitored values to enforceable
parameter ``levels'' established by the owner or operator. A difference
in the proposed rule and the HON is that the procedure for determining
the enforceable parameter monitoring level for continuous process vents
is both more specific and restrictive than that in subpart G. Subpart G
allows the use of engineering assessments and manufacturers'
recommendations in establishing the enforceable level, while the
proposed rule would require that the level be established entirely
based on the monitoring conducted during the compliance test. The level
is established as the average of the maximum (or minimum) monitored
point values for the three test runs. That is, if the operating
parameter to be established is a maximum, the value of the parameter
shall be the average of the maximum values from each of the three test
runs. Likewise, if the operating parameter to be established is a
minimum, the value of the parameter shall be the average of the minimum
values from each of the three test runs.
b. Batch Front-End Process Vents. Process vents that include gas
streams originating from batch unit operations in the front-end of an
elastomer product process unit are subject to the batch front-end
process vent provisions of the proposed rule. Consistent with
provisions in the proposed rule for other emission source types, batch
front-end process vents are classified as Group 1 or Group 2, with
control being required for Group 1 batch front-end process vents.
An important aspect of the batch front-end process vent provisions
is that applicability is on an individual vent basis. All batch
emission episodes that are emitted to the atmosphere through the vent
are to be considered in the group determination. The proposed rule does
not require that emissions from similar batch unit operations emitted
from different vents be combined for applicability determinations. In
other words, if a process included four batch reactors, and each
reactor had a dedicated vent to the atmosphere, applicability would be
determined for each reactor.
The applicability criteria of the batch front-end process vent
provisions are from the Batch Processes ACT, and are based on
volatility and annual emissions of the HAP emitted from the vent, and
the average flow rate of the vent stream. The vent stream
characteristics are determined at the exit from the batch unit
operation before any emission control or recovery device. The proposed
rule specifies that reflux condensers, condensers recovering monomer or
solvent from a batch stripping operation, and condensers recovering
monomer or solvent from a batch distillation operation are considered
part of the unit operation. Therefore, the batch front-end process vent
applicability criteria would be applied after these condensers.
The first step in the applicability determination is to calculate
the annual HAP emissions. Annual HAP emissions may be calculated using
equations contained in the regulation (which are from the Batch
Processes ACT) and/or testing. Engineering assessment may also be used
if the equations are not appropriate and testing is not feasible. Batch
front-end process vents with annual HAP emissions less than 225
kilograms per year are exempt from all batch front-end process vent
requirements, other than the [[Page 30808]] requirement to estimate
annual HAP emissions.
All batch front-end process vents with annual emissions greater
than 225 kilograms per year are required to determine the volatility
class of the vent. The volatility class of the batch front-end process
vent is based on the weighted average vapor pressure of HAP emitted
annually from the vent. There are three volatility classes--low,
medium, and high, which are shown in Table 5.

Table 5.--Batch Front-End Process Vent Volatility Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAVP ^{a
Vent volatility class kilopascals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
low....................................................... < 10
moderate.................................................. 10 vp < 20
high......................................................
20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Weighted average vapor pressure of batch front-end process vent.

There are two tiers of Group 2 batch front-end process vents.
First, if the annual HAP emissions of a vent are below specified cutoff
levels, the batch front-end process vent is classified as a Group 2
vent, and a batch cycle limitation must be established (discussed
below). These cutoff emission levels are 11,800 kilograms HAP per year
for low volatility vents, 7,300 kilograms HAP per year for medium
volatility vents, and 10,500 kilograms HAP per year for high volatility
vents.
If annual HAP emissions are greater than the cutoff emission levels
specified above, the owner must determine the annual average flow rate
of the batch front-end process vent, and the ``cutoff flow rate'' using
the equation in the proposed rule for the appropriate volatility class.
The Group 1/Group 2 classification is then based on a comparison
between the actual annual average flow rate, and the cutoff flow rate.
If the actual flowrate is less than the calculated cutoff flowrate,
then the batch process vent is a Group 1 vent under today's proposed
standards, and control is required. If the actual flowrate is greater
than the calculated cutoff flowrate, then the batch process vent is a
Group 2 batch front-end process vent, and the owner or operator must
establish a batch cycle limitation.
Owners and operators of Group 2 batch front-end process vents must
establish a batch cycle limitation that ensures that HAP emissions from
the vent do not increase to a level that would make the batch front-end
process vent Group 1. The batch cycle limitation is an enforceable
restriction on the number of batch cycles that can be performed in a
year. An owner or operator has two choices regarding the level of the
batch cycle limitation. The limitation may be set to maintain emissions
below the annual emission cutoff levels listed above, or the limitation
may be set to ensure that annual emissions do not increase to a level
that makes the calculated cutoff flow rate increase beyond the actual
annual average flow rate. The advantage to the first option is that the
owner or operator would not be required to determine the annual average
flow rate of the vent. A batch cycle limitation does not limit
production to any previous production level, but is based on the number
of cycles necessary to exceed one of the two batch front-end process
vent applicability criteria discussed above.
The batch front-end process vent provisions require the owner or
operator of a Group 1 batch front-end process vent stream to: (1)
Reduce the emissions of organic HAP using a flare or (2) reduce
emissions of organic HAP by 90 weight-percent over each batch cycle
using a control or recovery device. If a halogenated batch vent stream
(defined as a vent that has a mass emission rate of halogen atoms in
organic compounds of 3,750 kilograms per year or greater) is sent to a
combustion device, the outlet stream must be controlled to reduce
emissions of hydrogen halides and halogens by 99 percent.
Control could be achieved at varying levels for different emission
episodes as long as the required level of control for the batch cycle
was achieved. The owner or operator could even elect to control some
emission episodes and by-pass control for others. Performance test
provisions are included for Group 1 batch front-end process vents to
verify that the control device achieves the required performance.
Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions necessary to
demonstrate compliance are also included in the batch front-end process
vent provisions. These provisions are modeled after the analogous
continuous process vent provisions in the HON. Compliance with the
monitoring provisions is based on a comparison of batch cycle daily
average monitored values to enforceable parameter monitoring levels
established by the owner or operator.
The proposed provisions for batch front-end process vents contain
three conditions that can greatly simplify compliance. First, an owner
or operator can control a batch front-end process vent in accordance
with the Group 1 batch front-end process vent requirements and bypass
the applicability determination. Second, if a batch front-end process
vent is combined with a continuous vent stream before a recovery or
control device, the owner or operator is exempt from all batch front-
end process vent requirements. However, applicability determinations,
tests, etc. for the continuous vent must be conducted at conditions
when the addition of the batch vent streams makes the HAP concentration
in the combined stream greatest. Finally, if batch front-end process
vents combined to create a ``continuous'' flow to a control or recovery
device, the less complicated continuous process vent monitoring
requirements are used.
3. Process Back-End Operations
Process back-end operations include all operations at an elastomer
product process unit that occur after the stripping operations. These
operations include, but are not limited to, filtering, drying,
separating, and other finishing operations, as well as product storage.
The back-end process provisions contain residual HAP limitations
for three subcategories: Ethylene propylene rubber (EPR), polybutadiene
rubber and/or styrene butadiene rubber by solution (PBR/SBRS), and
styrene butadiene rubber by emulsion (SBRE). The limitations for EPR
and PBR/SBRS are in units of kilograms HAP per megagram of crumb rubber
dry weight (crumb rubber dry weight means the weight of the polymer,
minus the weight of water, residual organics, carbon black, and
extender oils), and the limitation for SBRE is in units of kilogram HAP
per megagram latex. The limitation is a weekly average weighted based
on the weight of rubber or latex processed in the stripper. Two methods
of compliance are available: (1) Stripping the polymer to remove the
residual HAP to the levels in the standards, on a weekly weighted
average basis, or (2) reducing emissions using add-on control to a
level equivalent to the level that would be achieved if stripping was
used.
a. Compliance Using Stripping Technology. If stripping is the
method of compliance selected, the proposed rule allows two options for
demonstrating compliance: By sampling and by monitoring stripper
operating parameters. If compliance is demonstrated by sampling,
samples of the stripped wet crumb or stripped latex must be taken
immediately after the stripper and analyzed to determine the residual
HAP content. The EPA is specifically requesting comments on the safety
aspects associated with the [[Page 30809]] sampling location of the wet
crumb or stripped latex.
A sample must be taken once per grade per day or once per batch per
day. The sample must be analyzed to determine the residual HAP content,
and the corresponding weight of rubber or latex processed in the
stripper must be recorded. This information is then used to calculate a
weekly weighted average. A weekly weighted average that is above the
limitation is a violation of the standard, as is a failure to sample
and analyze at least 75 percent of the samples required during the
week. The EPA has developed test methods that would be used to
determine compliance with the standard, which are proposed separately
in today's Federal Register. Records of each test result would be
required, along with the corresponding weight of the polymer processed
in the stripper. Records of the weekly weighted averages must also be
maintained.
An owner or operator complying using stripping can also demonstrate
compliance by continuously monitoring stripper operating parameters. If
using this approach, the owner or operator must establish stripper
operating parameters for each grade of polymer processed in the
stripper, along with the corresponding residual HAP content of that
grade. The parameters that must be monitored include, at a minimum,
temperature, pressure, steaming rates (for steam strippers), and some
parameter that is indicative of residence time. The HAP content of the
grade must be determined initially using the proposed residual HAP test
methods discussed above. The owner or operator can elect to establish a
single set of stripper operating parameters for multiple grades. As
discussed in section V of today's notice, the EPA is requesting
comments on the use of predictive computer modeling in place of
stripper parameter monitoring.
A difference in the demonstration of compliance by sampling, and
the demonstration of compliance by monitoring stripping parameters, is
that the monitoring option is entirely based on a grade or batch. To
further explain, if a particular grade of polymer is processed in the
stripped continuously for 32 hours, a sample of that grade is required
to be taken each operating day, if the sampling compliance
demonstration option is selected. However, if the stripping parameter
monitoring option is selected, the entire length of time the grade is
being processed in the stripper is treated as a single unit.
During the operation of the stripper, the parameters must be
continuously monitored, with a reading of each parameter taken at least
once every 15 minutes. If, during the processing of a grade, all hourly
average parameter values are in accordance with the established levels,
the owner or operator can use the HAP content determined initially in
the calculation of the weekly weighted average, and sampling is not
required. However, if one hourly average value for any parameter is not
in accordance with the established operating parameter, a sample must
be taken and the HAP content determined using the proposed test methods
to be used in calculating the weekly weighted average.
Records of the initial residual HAP content results, along with the
corresponding stripper parameter monitoring results for the sample,
must be maintained. The hourly average monitoring results are required
to be maintained, along with the results of any HAP content tests
conducted due to exceedance of the established parameter monitoring
levels. Records must also be kept of the weight of polymer processed in
each grade, and the weekly weighted average values.
If complying with the residual HAP limitations using stripping
technology, and demonstrating compliance by monitoring stripper
parameters, there are three ways a facility can be in violation of the
standard. First, a weekly weighted average that is above the limitation
is a violation of the standard, as is a failure to sample and analyze a
sample for a grade with an hourly average parameter value not in
accordance with the established monitoring parameter levels. The third
way for a facility to be out of compliance is if the stripper
monitoring data are not sufficient for at least 75 percent of the
grades produced during the week. Stripper data are considered
insufficient if monitoring parameters are obtained for less than 75
percent of the 15 minute periods during the processing of a grade.
b. Compliance Using Add-On Control. If add-on control is the method
of compliance selected, there are two levels of compliance. Initial
compliance is based on a source test, and continuous compliance is
based on the daily average of parameter monitoring results for the
control or recovery device.
The initial performance test must consist of three 1-hour runs or
three complete batch cycles, if the duration of the batch cycle is less
than 1 hour. The test runs must be conducted during processing of
``worst-case'' grade, which means the grade with the highest residual
HAP content leaving the stripper. The ``uncontrolled'' residual HAP
content in the latex or wet crumb rubber must be determined, using the
proposed test methods, after the stripper. Then, when the crumb for
which the uncontrolled residual HAP was determined is being processed
in the back-end unit operation being controlled, the inlet and outlet
emissions for the control or recovery device must be determined using
Method 18. The uncontrolled HAP content is then adjusted to account for
the reduction in emissions by the control or recovery device, and
compared to the levels in the standard. For initial compliance, the
adjusted residual HAP content level for each test run must be less than
the level in today's proposed standards.
During the initial test, the appropriate parameter must be
monitored, and an enforceable ``level'' established as a maximum or
minimum operating parameter based on this monitoring. As with
continuous front-end process vents, the level is established as the
average of the maximum (or minimum) point values for the three test
runs.
Continuous monitoring must be conducted on the control or recovery
device, and compliance is based on the daily average of the monitoring
results. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions are
the same as the process vent provisions in the HON, which are required
for continuous front-end process vents in today's proposed standard.
c. Carbon disulfide limitations for styrene butadiene rubber by
emulsion producers. Today's proposed regulation would reduce carbon
disulfide (CS2) emissions from styrene butadiene rubber producers
using an emulsion process by limiting the concentration of CS2 in
the dryer vent stacks to 10 ppmv. Sulfur-containing shortstopping
agents used to produce certain grades of rubber have been determined to
be the source of CS2 in the dryer stacks. Owners or operators
would be required to develop standard operating procedures for each
grade that uses a sulfur-containing shortstopping agent. These standard
operating procedures would specify the type and amount of agent added,
and the point in the process where the agent is added. One standard
operating procedure can be used for more than one grade if possible.
For each standard operating procedure, the owner or operator would
be required to conduct a performance test to measure the concentration
of CS2 in the dryer stack(s). A particular standard operating
procedure would be acceptable if the average CS2 concentration for
the three required test [[Page 30810]] runs was less than 10 ppmv. The
facility would be in compliance with this section of the proposed
regulation if the appropriate standard operating procedure is followed
whenever a sulfur-containing shortstopping agent is used. Facilities
that route dryer vents to a combustion device would be exempt from this
section of the regulation.
4. Wastewater Operations
For all subcategories, the wastewater provisions are identical to
the wastewater provisions in subparts F and G. The proposed rule
applies to any organic HAP-containing water, raw material,
intermediate, product, by-product, co-product, or waste material that
exits any elastomer production process unit equipment and has either
(1) a total volatile organic HAP concentration of 5 ppmw or greater and
a flow rate of 0.02 pm or greater; or (2) a total volatile
organic HAP concentration of 10,000 ppmw or greater at any flow rate.
``Wastewater,'' as defined in Sec. 63.101 of subpart F, encompasses
both maintenance wastewater and process wastewater. The process
wastewater provisions also apply to organic HAP-containing residuals
that are generated from the management and treatment of Group 1
wastewater streams. Examples of process wastewater streams include, but
are not limited to, wastewater streams exiting process unit equipment
(e.g., decanter water, such as condensed steam used in the process),
feed tank drawdown, vessel washout/cleaning that is part of the routine
batch cycle, and residuals recovered from waste management units.
Examples of maintenance wastewater streams are those generated by
descaling of heat exchanger tubing bundles, cleaning of distillation
column traps, and draining of pumps into an individual drain system.
Wastewater streams generated downstream of the stripper (i.e., back-end
wastewater streams) located at facilities that are subject to a back-
end emission limitation, are exempt from the wastewater requirements.
a. Maintenance wastewater. For maintenance wastewater, the proposed
rule incorporates the requirements of Sec. 63.105 of subpart F for
maintenance wastewater. This requires owners or operators to prepare a
description of procedures that will be used to manage HAP-containing
wastewater created during maintenance activities, and to implement
these procedures.
b. Process wastewater. The Group 1/Group 2 approach is also used
for the HON process wastewater provisions, with Group 1 process
wastewater streams requiring control. For existing sources, a Group 1
wastewater stream is one with an average flow rate greater than or
equal to 10 liters per minute and a total VOHAP average concentration
greater than or equal to 1,000 parts per million by weight. For new
sources, a Group 1 wastewater stream is one with an average flow rate
greater than or equal to 0.02 liter per minute and an average
concentration of 10 parts per million by weight or greater.
An owner or operator may determine the VOHAP concentration and flow
rate of a wastewater stream either (1) at the point of generation; or
(2) downstream of the point of generation. If wastewater stream
characteristics are determined downstream of the point of generation,
an owner or operator must make corrections for losses by air emissions;
reduction of VOHAP concentration or changes in flow rate by mixing with
other water or wastewater streams; and reduction in flow rate or VOHAP
concentration by treating or otherwise handling the wastewater stream
to remove or destroy HAP. An owner or operator can determine the flow
rate and VOHAP concentration for the point of generation by (1)
sampling; (2) using engineering knowledge; or (3) using pilot-scale or
bench-scale test data. Both the applicability determination and the
Group 1/Group 2 determination must reflect the wastewater
characteristics before losses due to volatilization, a concentration
differential due to dilution, or a change in VOHAP concentration or
flow rate due to treatment.
There are instances where an owner or operator can bypass the group
determination. An owner or operator is allowed to designate a
wastewater stream or mixture of wastewater streams to be a Group 1
wastewater stream without actually determining the flow rate and VOHAP
concentration for the point of generation. Using this option, an owner
or operator can simply declare that a wastewater stream or mixture of
wastewater streams is a Group 1 wastewater stream and that the
emissions from the stream(s) are controlled from the point of
generation through treatment. An owner or operator is required to
determine the wastewater stream characteristics (i.e., VOHAP
concentration and flow rate) for the designated Group 1 wastewater
stream in order to establish the treatment requirements in section
63.138. Also, an owner or operator who elects to use the process unit
alternative in Sec. 63.138(d) of subpart G or the 95-percent biological
treatment option in section 63.138(e) of subpart G is not required to
make a Group 1/Group 2 determination.
Controls must be applied to Group 1 wastewater streams, unless the
source complies with the source-wide mass flow rate provisions of
Secs. 63.138(c)(5) or (c)(6) of subpart G; or implements process
changes that reduce emissions as specified in Sec. 63.138(c)(7) of
subpart G. Control requirements include (1) suppressing emissions from
the point of generation to the treatment device; (2) recycling the
wastewater stream or treating the wastewater stream to the required Fr
values for each HAP as listed in table 9 of subpart G (The required Fr
values in table 9 of subpart G are based on steam stripping); (3)
recycling any residuals or treating any residuals to destroy the total
combined HAP mass flow rate by 99 percent or more; and (4) controlling
the air emissions generated by treatment processes. While emission
controls are not required for Group 2 wastewater streams, owners or
operators may opt to include them in management and treatment options.
Suppression of emissions from the point of generation to the
treatment device will be achieved by using covers and enclosures and
closed vent systems to collect organic HAP vapors from the wastewater
and convey them to treatment devices. Air emissions routed through
closed-vent systems from covers, enclosures, and treatment processes
must be reduced by 95 percent for combustion or recovery devices; or to
a level of 20 ppmv for combustion devices.
The treatment requirements are designed to reduce the HAP content
in the wastewater prior to placement in units without air emissions
controls, and thus to reduce the HAP emissions to the atmosphere. The
final rule provides several compliance options, including percent
reduction, effluent concentration limitations, and mass removal.
For demonstrating compliance with the various requirements, owners
or operators have a choice of using a specified design, conducting
performance tests, or documenting engineering calculations. Appropriate
compliance, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions are
included in the regulation.
5. Equipment Leaks
The equipment leak provisions in the proposed rule refer directly
to the requirements contained in subpart H. In fact, many of the
elastomer facilities are already subject to subpart H requirements
through subpart I. Following is a summary of the subpart H
requirements. [[Page 30811]]
The standards would apply to equipment in organic HAP service 300
or more hours per year that is associated with a elastomer product
process unit, including valves, pumps, connectors, compressors,
pressure relief devices, open-ended valves or lines, sampling
connection systems, instrumentation systems, surge control vessels,
bottoms receivers, and agitators. The provisions also apply to closed
vent systems and control devices used to control emissions from any of
the listed equipment.
a. Pumps and valves. Today's proposed standard requires leak
detection and repair for pumps in light liquid service and for valves
in gas or light liquid service. Standards for both are implemented in
three phases. The first and second phases for both types of equipment
consist of a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program, with lower leak
definitions in the second phase. The LDAR program involves a periodic
check for organic vapor leaks with a portable instrument; if leaks are
found, they must be repaired within a certain period of time. In the
third phase, the periodic monitoring (a work practice standard) is
combined with a performance requirement for an allowable percent
leaking components.
The standard requires monthly monitoring of pumps using an
instrument and weekly visual inspections for indications of leaks. In
the first two phases of the valve standard, quarterly monitoring is
required. In phase three, semiannual or annual monitoring may be used
by process units with less than 1 percent and less than 0.5 percent
leaking valves, respectively.
In phase three, if the base performance levels for a type of
equipment are not achieved, owners or operators must, in the case of
pumps, enter into a quality improvement program (QIP), and in the case
of valves may either enter into a QIP or implement monthly LDAR. The
QIP is a concept that enables plants exceeding the base performance
levels to eventually achieve the desired levels without incurring
penalty or being in a noncompliance status. As long as the requirements
of the QIP are met, the plant is in compliance. The basic QIP consists
of information gathering, determining superior performing technologies,
and replacing poorer performers with the superior technologies until
the base performance levels are achieved.
b. Connectors. The rule also requires leak detection and repair of
connectors in gas or light liquid service. The monitoring frequency for
connectors is determined by the percent leaking connectors in the
process unit and the consistency of performance. Process units that
have 0.5 percent or greater leaking connectors are required to monitor
all connectors annually. Units that have less than 0.5 percent may
monitor biannually and units that show less than 0.5 percent for two
monitoring cycles may monitor once every 4 years.
c. Other equipment. Subpart H also contains standards for other
types of equipment, compressors, open-ended lines, pressure relief
devices, and sampling connection systems. Compressors are required to
be controlled using a barrier-fluid seal system, by a closed vent
system to a control device, or must be demonstrated to have no leaks
greater than 500 ppm. Open-ended lines must be capped or plugged.
Pressure relief devices are required to be controlled using a closed
vent system to a control device, a rupture disk, or must be
demonstrated to have no leaks greater than 500 ppm HAP. Sampling
connections must be a closed-purge or closed-loop system, or must be
controlled using a closed vent system to a control device. Agitators
must either be monitored for leaks or use systems that are better
designed, such as dual mechanical seals. Pumps, valves, connectors, and
agitators in heavy liquid service; instrumentation systems; and
pressure relief devices in liquid service are subject to instrument
monitoring only if evidence of a potential leak is found through sight,
sound, or smell. Instrumentation systems consist of smaller pipes and
tubing that carry samples of process fluids to be analyzed to determine
process operating conditions or systems for measurement of process
conditions.
Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers are required to be
controlled using a closed vent system vented to a control device.
However, the applicability of controls to surge control vessels and
bottoms receivers is based on the size of the vessel and the vapor
pressure of the contents. Controls are required for surge control
vessels and bottoms receivers meeting the criteria for Group 1 storage
vessels. Further, in the proposed elastomer production provisions,
surge control vessels and bottoms receivers located downstream from the
stripper, that contain latex, are exempt from the equipment leak
provisions.
d. Other provisions. Under certain conditions delay of repair
beyond the required period may be acceptable. Examples of these
situations include where: (1) A piece of equipment cannot be repaired
without a process unit shutdown, (2) equipment is taken out of organic
HAP service, (3) emissions from repair will exceed emissions from delay
of repair until the next shutdown, and (4) equipment with better leak
performance such as pumps with single mechanical seals are replaced
with dual mechanical seals.
In addition, specific alternative standards are included for batch
processes and enclosed buildings. For batch processes, the owner or
operator can choose either to meet similar standards to those for
continuous processes with monitoring frequency pro-rated to time in use
of organic HAP, or to periodically pressure test the entire system. For
enclosed buildings, the owner or operator may forego monitoring if the
building is kept under a negative pressure and emissions are routed
through a closed vent system to an approved control device.
The equipment leak standards require the use of Method 21 of
appendix A of part 60 to detect leaks. Method 21 requires a portable
organic vapor analyzer to monitor for leaks from equipment in use. Test
procedures using either a gas or a liquid for pressure testing the
batch system are specified to detect for leaks.
The standards would require certain records to demonstrate
compliance with the standard and the records must be retained in a
readily accessible recordkeeping system. Subpart H requires that
records be maintained of equipment that would be subject to the
standards, testing associated with batch processes, design
specifications of closed vent systems and control devices, test results
from performance tests, and information required by equipment in QIP.
6. Emissions Averaging
Today's proposed standards would apply basically the same emissions
averaging scheme as has been adopted by the HON, although the emissions
averaging provisions of the proposed rule are entirely contained in the
proposed rule instead of referring to the subpart G emissions averaging
provisions. Only owners or operators of existing sources may use
emissions averaging. In addition, emissions averaging is only allowed
within an affected source, where an affected source is generally
defined as each process unit at a plant site that produces one of the
twelve types of elastomer products. All HAP emissions, except those
from batch front-end process vents, equipment leaks, and wastewater
streams treated in a biological treatment unit, are allowed to be
included in the average Up to 20 emission points may be included in
emissions averages for all [[Page 30812]] affected sources at a single
plant site (this is increased to 25 emission points where pollution
prevention measures are used to control emission points to be included
in an average). It is important to stress that the emission point limit
is on a ``plant site'' basis, where the plant site is defined as all
contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control.
Therefore, if a plant site contains more than one affected source
(i.e., different processes manufacturing more than one elastomer
product), the 20 emission points allowed in emissions averages must be
shared among the different processes. It should again be noted that the
sharing of the number of emission points between affected sources does
not mean that emission credits and debits can be shared between
affected sources. In addition, the owner or operator must demonstrate
that the averaging scheme will not result in greater hazard or risk
relative to strict compliance with the standards in the absence of
averaging.
The NESHAP for Polymers and Resins IV, which was proposed on March
29, 1995, contains a maximum number of emission points per subcategory
(rather than per plant site) that can be included in emissions
averaging. It is the EPA's intent, depending on consideration of public
comments on both rules, to change Polymers and Resins IV to be like
Polymers and Resins I (20-25 emission points per plant site), or at
least to make the rules the same or consistent at promulgation.
The owner or operator must identify all the emission points that
would be included in an emissions average and estimate their allowable
and actual emissions using the reference efficiencies of the reference
control technologies for each kind of emission point.
For each Group 1 point, the allowable emissions level is the
emissions remaining after application of a reference control
technology. As a result, all Group 1 emission points that are not being
controlled with the reference control technology or a control measure
achieving an equivalent reduction are emitting more than their
allowable emissions. These points are generating emission ``debits.''
Emission debits are calculated by subtracting the amount of emissions
allowed by the standard for a given emission point from the amount of
actual emissions for that point. If a Group 1 emission point is
controlled by a device or a pollution prevention measure that does not
achieve the control level of the reference control technology, the
amount of emission debits will be based on the difference between the
actual control level being achieved and what the reference control
would have achieved. Equations for calculating debits are provided in
the proposed rule.
The owner or operator must control other emission points to a level
more stringent than what is required for that kind of point to generate
emission ``credits.'' Emission credits are calculated by subtracting
the amount of emissions that actually exist for a given emission point
from the amount of emissions that would be allowed under today's
proposed rule, and then applying a 10-percent discount factor. If
credits are generated through the use of a pollution prevention
measure, no discount factor is applied. The discount factor mimics
provisions in the HON.
Justification for inclusion of a discount factor and for the level
at which it is set were discussed in the Preamble to the final HON
rule.^{1 Equations for calculating credits are also provided in
today's proposed rule. To be in compliance, the owner or operator must
be able to show that the source's emission credits were greater than or
equal to its emission debits.

\1\ United States Environmental Protection Agency. 59 FR 19430,
Friday, April 22, 1994. National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Certain Source Categories; Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credits may come from: (1) Control of Group 1 emission points using
technologies that the EPA has rated as being more effective than the
appropriate reference control technology; (2) control of Group 2
emission points; and (3) pollution prevention projects that result in
control levels more stringent than what the standard requires for the
relevant point or points.
A reference control technology cannot be used to generate credits
beyond its assigned efficiency. For a new control technology or work
practice, either the EPA or the permit authority must determine its
control efficiency before it can be used to generate credits.
Today's proposed rule also grants State and local implementing
agencies the discretion to preclude sources from using emissions
averaging. This is also consistent with the HON provisions.
G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to each
emission source type are included in the applicable sections of the
proposed rule. Section 63.491 of the proposed rule provides general
reporting, recordkeeping, and testing requirements.
The general reporting, recordkeeping, and testing requirements of
this subpart are very similar to those found in subparts F and G. The
proposed rule also incorporates provisions of subpart A of part 63. A
table included in the proposed rule designates which sections of
subpart A apply to the proposed rule.
The proposed rule requires sources to keep records and submit
reports of information necessary to determine applicability and
document compliance. The proposed rule requires retention of hourly
average values (or batch cycle average values) of monitored parameters
for operating days when there is not an excursion. If there is a
monitoring parameter excursion, the 15-minute values for the excursion
period must be retained. The proposed rule also requires that records
of all residual HAP content test results. Records must be kept for 5
years.
Section 63.491 of the proposed rule lists the following types of
reports that must be submitted to the Administrator as appropriate: (1)
Initial Notification, (2) Application for Approval of Construction or
Reconstruction, (3) Implementation Plan (if an operating permit
application has not been submitted, (4) Emissions Averaging Plan, (5)
Notification of Compliance Status, (6) Periodic Reports, and (7) other
reports. The requirements for each of the seven types of reports are
summarized below.
In addition, Sec. 63.491 incorporates the reporting requirements of
subpart H, which requires owners and operators to submit three types of
reports: (1) An Initial Notification; (2) a Notification of Compliance
Status; and (3) Periodic Reports.
1. Initial Notification
The Initial Notification is due 120 days after the date of
promulgation for existing sources. For new sources, it is due 180 days
before commencement of construction or reconstruction, or 45 days after
promulgation, whichever is later. Owners or operators can submit one
Initial Notification to comply with both the requirements of
Sec. 63.491 of the proposed rule and the requirements of subpart H. The
notification must list the elastomer processes that are subject to the
proposed rule, and which provisions may apply (e.g., storage vessels,
continuous front-end process vents, batch front-end process vents,
back-end process, wastewater, and/or equipment leak provisions). A
detailed identification of emission points is not necessary for the
Initial Notification. The notification, however, must include a
statement of whether the source expects that it can achieve compliance
by the specified compliance date. [[Page 30813]]
2. Application for Approval of Construction or Reconstruction
The proposed rule requires that the owners or operator comply with
Sec. 63.5 of subpart A regarding the application for approval of
construction or reconstruction, with one exception. The information
required to be included in the Implementation Plan must be submitted as
part of the application for approval of construction or reconstruction.
3. Implementation Plan
The Implementation Plan details how the source plans to comply.
Implementation Plans are required only for existing sources that have
not yet submitted operating permit applications. New sources are
required to submit the information normally required in the
Implementation Plan as part of the Application for Approval of
Construction or Reconstruction. Implementation Plans are due 12 months
prior to the date of compliance. The information in the Implementation
Plan should be incorporated into the source's operating permit
application. The terms and conditions of the plan, as approved by the
permit authority, would then be incorporated into the operating permit.
The Implementation Plan would include a list of emission points
subject to the storage vessels, continuous front-end process vents,
batch front-end process vents, wastewater operations, and equipment
leak provisions and, as applicable, whether each emission point (e.g.,
storage vessel or process vent) is Group 1 or Group 2. The control
technology or method of compliance planned for each Group 1 emission
point must be specified. In addition, the Implementation Plan must
identify if the facility has back-end process emission operations that
are subject to a back-end emission limitation. If the facility is
subject to a back-end emission limitation, the owner or operator must
specify if compliance will be achieved using stripping technology or
add-on control. Additionally, the owner or operator must specify if
continuous compliance using stripping technology will be demonstrated
by sampling or by monitoring stripper parameters.
The plan must also certify that appropriate testing, monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping will be done for each Group 1 emission
point of subject process back-end. If a source requests approval to
monitor a unique parameter, a rationale must be included.
4. Emissions Averaging Plan
The Emissions Averaging Plan would be due 18 months prior to the
date of compliance. New sources are not allowed to comply through the
use of emissions averaging. The owner or operator must demonstrate that
the emissions described in the Plan will not result in greater hazard
or risk to human health or the environment than would result if the
emissions points were controlled through the traditional provisions on
the rule.
For points included in emissions averaging, the Emissions Averaging
Plan would include: An identification of all points in the average and
whether they are Group 1 or Group 2 points; the specific control
technique or pollution prevention measure that will be applied to each
point; the control efficiency for each control used in the average; the
projected credit or debit generated by each point; and the overall
expected credits and debits. The plan must also certify that the same
types of testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping that are
required by the proposed rule for Group 1 points will be done for all
points (both Group 1 and Group 2) included in an emissions average. If
a source requests approval to monitor a unique parameter or use a
unique recordkeeping and reporting system, a rationale must be included
in the Emissions Averaging Plan.
5. Notification of Compliance Status
The Notification of Compliance Status would be required 150 days
after the source's compliance date. It contains the information for
Group 1 emission points, back-end process operations using add-on
control, and for all emission points in emissions averages, necessary
to demonstrate that compliance has been achieved. Such information
includes, but is not limited to, the results of any performance tests
for continuous and/or batch process vents, and wastewater emission
points; one complete test report for each test method used for a
particular kind of emission point; TRE determinations for process
vents; group determinations for batch process vents; design analyses
for storage vessels and wastewater emission points; monitored parameter
levels for each emission point and supporting data for the designated
level; and values of all parameters used to calculate emission credits
and debits for emissions averaging. The Notification of Compliance
Status required by subpart H must be submitted within 90 days after the
compliance date.
6. Periodic Reports
Generally, Periodic Reports would be submitted semiannually.
However, there are two exceptions. First, quarterly reports must be
submitted for all points included in an emissions average. Second, if
monitoring results show that the parameter values for an emission point
are above the maximum or below the minimum established levels for more
than 1 percent of the operating time in a reporting period, or the
monitoring system is out of service for more than 5 percent of the
time, the regulatory authority may request that the owner or operator
submit quarterly reports for that emission point. After 1 year,
semiannual reporting can be resumed, unless the regulatory authority
requests continuation of quarterly reports.
All Periodic Reports would include information required to be
reported under the recordkeeping and reporting provisions for each
emission point. For emission points involved in emissions averages, the
report would include the results of the calculations of credits and
debits for each month and for the quarter.
For continuously monitored parameters, the Periodic Report must
report when ``excursions'' occur. Table 6 shows what constitutes an
excursion. A significant difference exists between the proposed rule
and the HON. In the HON, a source was allowed a certain number of
``excused'' excursions each semi-annual period before the source was
determined to be out of compliance. In today's proposed rule, the owner
or operator is out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart
for each excursion.
Periodic Reports would also include results of any performance
tests conducted during the reporting period and instances when required
inspections revealed problems. Additional information the source is
required to report under its operating permit or Implementation Plan
would also be described in Periodic Reports.
Periodic Reports for subpart H must be submitted every 6 months,
and must contain summary information on the leak detection and repair
program, changes to the process unit, changes in monitoring frequency
or monitoring alternatives, and/or initiation of a QIP.
7. Other Reports
Other reports required under the proposed rule include: Reports of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction; process changes that change the
[[Page 30814]] compliance status of process vents; and requests for
extensions of the allowable repair period and notifications of
inspections for storage vessels and wastewater.

Table 6.--Summary of Excursions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission source type Type of excursion Description of excursion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuous Front-End Process Daily average exceedance.... When the daily average of a monitored parameter is
Vents. above the maximum, or below the minimum,
established level.
Insufficient monitoring data Insufficient monitoring data is when an owner or
operator fails to obtain a valid hour of data for
at least 75 percent of the operating hours during
an operating day. Four 15-minute parameter
measurements must be obtained to constitute a valid
hour of data.
Batch Front-End Process Batch cycle daily average When the daily average of a monitored parameter is
Vents. exceedance. above the maximum, or below the minimum,
established level.
Insufficient monitoring data Insufficient monitoring data is when an owner or
operator fails to obtain valid parameter
measurements for at least 75 percent of the 15-
minute periods during all controlled batch cycles
during an operating day.
Back-End Process Operations Weekly weighted average..... When the weekly weighted average HAP content of
compying by stripping/ polymers processed is above the level in the
sampling. standard.
Insufficient sampling data.. Insufficient sampling data is when an owner or
operator fails to sample and/or analyze the
residual HAP content for at least 75 percent of the
times during the week when sampling is required.
Back-End Process Operations Weekly weighted average..... When the weekly weighted average HAP content of
complying by stripping/ polymers processed is above the level in the
stripper parameter standard.
monitoring.
Failure to sample........... When a sample is not taken and analyzed in
situations where a one hourly average stripper
parameter value is not in accordance with the
established parameter level.
Insufficient stripper Insufficient stripper monitoring data is when an
monitoring data. owner or operator fails to obtain valid stripper
monitoring data for at least 75 percent of grades
or batches processing during the week. Stripper
operating parameter measurements must be obtained
for at least 75 percent of the 15-minute periods
during the processing of a grade or batch to
constitute valid stripper monitoring data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, quarterly reporting of the number of batch cycles
accomplished for Group 2 batch process vents is required. Every fourth
quarterly report would be required to include the total batch cycles
accomplished during the previous 12 months, and a statement whether the
owner or operator is in compliance with the batch cycle limitation.

V. Discussion of Major Issues

The Administrator welcomes comments from interested persons on any
aspect of the proposed standards, and on any statement in the preamble
or the referenced supporting documents. The proposed standards were
developed on the basis of information available. The Administrator is
specifically requesting factual information that may support either the
approach taken in the proposed standards or an alternate approach. To
receive proper consideration, documentation or data should be provided.
Specifically, the EPA is requesting comment and data on the following
issues.
As mentioned in section IV.A, the manufacture of some polymeric
resins and copolymers is similar in some ways to the manufacture of the
elastomers covered by today's proposed rule. The EPA does not intend
for today's proposed regulation to cover the production of resins and
copolymers, but recognizes that the relatively broad elastomer type
definitions in today's proposed regulation could be interpreted to
include some styrene butadiene resins and copolymers. The EPA
considered distinctions based on several factors, including glass
transition temperature, extent of conversion of monomers, process
difference, vulcanizability, SIC Codes, and relative ratio of styrene
and butadiene monomers, but discovered that each of these has
limitations in its ability to accurately and clearly distinguish
between elastomers and resins/copolymers. Therefore, the EPA is asking
for comment on specific methods or criteria to distinguish between
elastomers and resins/copolymers.
The proposed rule allows the monitoring of stripper parameters
instead of the daily crumb/latex sampling and analysis. The EPA is
request comments on the use of predictive computer modeling to monitor
process parameters and predict emissions, instead of parameter
monitoring or daily sampling and testing.
The back-end operations provisions in today's proposed regulation
requires that samples of crumb rubber or latex be taken at the exit of
the stripper, before any opportunity for emission of HAP to the
atmosphere. The EPA is requesting comments on the technical feasibility
and potential safety problems associated with these sampling
requirements.
The EPA is also requesting comments on the format of the back-end
provisions limiting the concentration of carbon disulfide in dryer
vents at styrene butadiene rubber by emulsion production facilities.
Industry representatives have made the EPA aware of other approaches
that could be taken to reduce these carbon disulfide emissions, such as
a limit on the amount of sulfur-containing shortstopping that could be
used. The EPA is interested in comments on the appropriateness of the
format for this section of the proposed rule, as well suggestions for
alternative approaches.
In today's proposed rule, emissions averaging is only allowed among
emission points associated with a single elastomer subcategory. There
are instances where more than one subcategory is present at the same
plant site. The EPA is interested in specific instances where emissions
averaging between subcategories is beneficial and, more broadly, on the
merits of allowing emissions averaging across
[[Page 30815]] subcategories (or categories) at polymers and resins
facilities where multiple subcategories are located. In addition, the
EPA is interested in the implementation and legal ramifications of such
cross-subcategory averaging.
Also, the EPA is specifically requesting comments on the
application of the 20 emission point limit (25, if pollution prevention
is used) on all elastomer affected sources located at a single plant
site, for purposes of averaging in this proposed rule. The EPA is
especially interested in specific situations where this limit will
preclude known opportunities within real facilities to generate cost-
effective credits. For these cases, the comments would be more useful
if they address specifics on the emission and cost quantities computed,
with detailed calculations and references.
Industry representatives have also mentioned to the EPA safety
problems associated with the application of the subpart H requirements
for open-ended valves or lines. The EPA is interested in comments on
this issue.

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

This section presents the air, non-air environmental (waste and
solid waste), energy, cost, and economic impacts resulting from the
control of HAP emissions under this rule.

A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP

The proposed rule would affect BR, EPI, EPR, HYP, NEO, NBR, PBR,
PSR, and SBR facilities that are major sources in themselves, or that
are located at a major source. Based on available information, all of
the facilities at which these elastomers are produced were judged to be
major sources for the purpose of developing these standards. (Final
determination of major source status occurs as part of the compliance
determination process undertaken by each individual source.)
Impacts are presented relative to a baseline reflecting the level
of control in the absence of the rule. The current level of control was
well understood, because emissions and control data were collected on
each facility included in the analysis. The impacts for existing
sources were estimated by bringing each facility's control level up to
today's proposed standards.
Impacts are presented relative to a baseline reflecting the level
of control in the absence of the rule. The current level of control was
well understood, because emissions and control data were collected on
each facility included in the analysis. The impacts for existing
sources were estimated by bringing each facility's control level up to
today's proposed standards.
Impacts are not assessed for new sources because it was projected
that no new sources are expected to begin operation through 1999. For
more information on this projection, see the New Source Memo in the
SID.

B. Primary Air Impacts

Today's proposed standards are estimated to reduce HAP emissions
from all existing sources of listed elastomers by 6,400 Mg/yr. This
represents a 48 percent reduction from baseline. Table 7 summarizes the
HAP emission reductions for each individual subcategory.

C. Other Environmental Impacts

The total criteria air pollutant emissions resulting from process
vent and wastewater control of today's proposed standards are estimated
to be around 178 Mg/yr, with NOX emissions from incinerators and
boilers accounting for around 155 Mg/yr. Minimal wastewater or solid
and hazardous waste impacts are projected.

Table 7.--HAP Emission Reduction by Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP Emission Reduction (Mg/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percentage
Subcategory Front-end Back-end reduction
Storage process process Wastewater Equipment Total from
vents operations operations leaks baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butyl rubber......... 0 211 0 102 293 606 64
Epichlorohydrin
elastomer........... 4 0 0 0 120 124 77
Ethylene propylene
rubber.............. 2 85 979 0 1,020 2,087 62
Halobutyl rubber..... 64 38 0 0 233 335 26
Hypalon^{TM............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neoprene............. 0 258 0 0 96 354 48
Nitrile butadiene
latex............... 2 0 0 94 41 135 83
Nitrile butadiene
rubber.............. 0 0 0 0 364 364 62
Polybutadiene rubber/
styrene butadiene
rubber by solution.. 0 0 882 0 637 1,519 44
Polysulfide rubber... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Styrene butadiene
latex............... 0 22 0 272 332 627 44
Styrene butadiene
rubber by emulsion.. 0 0 195 48 0 243 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 71 615 2,056 516 3,136 6,393 48
Percent of
total
reduction..... (1) (12) (31) (7) (48) ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Energy Impacts

The total nationwide energy demands that would result from
implementing the process vent and wastewater controls are around 1.10
x 10^{12 Btu annually.

E. Cost Impacts

Cost impacts include the capital costs of new control equipment,
the cost of energy (supplemental fuel, steam, and electricity) required
to operate control equipment, operation and maintenance costs, and the
cost savings generated by reducing the loss of valuable product in the
form of emissions. Also, cost impacts include the costs of monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting associated with today's proposed
standards. Average cost effectiveness ($/Mg of pollutant removed) is
also presented as part of cost impacts and is determined by dividing
the annual cost by the annual emission reduction. Table 8 summarizes
the estimated capital and annual costs and average cost effectiveness
by subcategory.

[[Page 30816]]
Table 8.--Summary of Proposed Regulatory Alternative Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCI TAC (1,000$/
(1,000$) yr) AER (Mg/yr) CE ($/Mg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butyl....................................................... $691 $1,316 596 $2,200
Epichlorohydrin............................................. 491 241 124 1,900
Ethylene Propylene.......................................... 5,957 3,732 2,087 1,800
Halobutyl................................................... 328 322 335 1,000
Hypalon........................................... ........... ........... ........... na
Neoprene.................................................... 560 897 354 2,500
Nitrile Butadiene Latex..................................... 465 243 135 1,800
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber.................................... 397 444 365 1,200
Polybutadiene/Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Solution.......... 11,780 8,335 1,519 ^{a 5,500
Polysulfide................................................. ........... ........... ........... na
Styrene Butadiene Latex..................................... 1,480 1,028 627 1,600
Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Emulsion........................ 3,942 2,112 243 ^{a 8,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a This cost-effectiveness is primarily due to the high costs estimated to control back-end process emissions.
The costs developed are costs for incineration devices to sufficient back-end vents so that emissions will be
reduced to a level equivalent to the level achieved by meeting the residual HAP limit by stripping.
Extrapolation of industry estimates of the cost of enhanced stripping place the cost of enhanced stripping as
low as 10 percent of the cost of incineration.

Under the proposed rule, it is estimated that total capital costs
for existing sources would be $26 million (1989 dollars), and total
annual costs would by $18.7 million (1989 dollars) per year. It is
expected that the actual compliance cost impacts of the proposed rule
would be less than presented because of the potential to use common
control devices, upgrade existing control devices, use other less
expensive control technologies, implement pollution prevention
technologies, or use emissions averaging. Because the effect of such
practices is highly site-specific and data were unavailable to estimate
how often the lower cost compliance practices could be utilized, it is
not possible to quantify the amount by which actual compliance costs
would be reduced.

F. Economic Impacts

Economic impacts for the regulatory alternatives analyzed show that
the estimated price increases for the affected chemicals range from 0.2
percent for nitrile butadiene latex (NBL) to 2.5 percent for BR.
Estimated decreases in production range from 0.7 percent for NBL to 5.0
percent for BR. No closures of facilities are expected as a result of
the standard.
Three aspects of the analysis likely lead to an overestimate of the
impacts. First, the economic analysis model assumes that all affected
firms compete in a national market, though in reality some firms may be
protected from competitors by regional or local trade barriers. Second,
facilities with the highest control cost per unit of production are
assumed to also have the highest baseline production costs per unit.
This assumption may not always be true, because the baseline production
cost per unit are not known, and thus, the estimated impacts,
particularly for the smaller firms, may to too high. Finally, economic
impacts may be overstated also because the alternative for halobutyl
rubber and butyl rubber that was used in this analysis is more
stringent and more costly than the selected regulatory alternative. For
more information, consult the Basis and Purpose Document (see the
Supplementary Information section near the beginning of the preamble).

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss today's
proposed standard in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air
Act. Persons wishing to make oral presentation on today's proposed
standards for BR, EPI, EPR, HYP, NEO, NBR, PBR, PSR, and SBR production
should contact the 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-92-45.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be
available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours
at the 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 the 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 the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, OMB has notified the
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to [[Page 30817]] OMB
suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875

In compliance with Executive Order 12875 we have involved State,
local, and tribal Governments in the development of this rule. These
governments are not directly impacted by the rule; i.e., they are not
required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of the
rule. However, they will be required to implement the rule; e.g.,
incorporate the rule into permits and enforce the rule. They will
collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resource burden of
implementing the rule. Two representatives of the State governments
have been members of the EPA Work Group developing the rule. The Work
Group has met numerous times, and comments have been solicited from the
Work Group members, including the State representatives; and their
comments have been carefully considered in the rule development. In
addition, all States are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule
during the public comment period, and the EPA intends to fully consider
these comments in the final rulemaking.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information collection request (ICR) document
has been prepared by the EPA, 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 587 hours per response, 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.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (or RFA, Public Law 96-354,
September 19, 1980) requires Federal agencies to give special
consideration to the impact of regulation on small businesses. The RFA
specifies that a final regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared
if a proposed regulation will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. To determine whether a final RFA
is required, a screening analysis, otherwise known as an initial RFA,
is necessary.
Regulatory impacts are considered significant if:
(1) Annual compliance costs increase total costs of production by
more than 5 percent, or
(2) Annual compliance costs as a percent of sales are at least 20
percent (percentage points) higher for small entities, or
(3) Capital cost of compliance represents a significant portion of
capital available to small entities, or
(4) The requirements of the regulation are likely to result in
closures of small entities.
A ``substantial number'' of small entities is generally considered
to be more than 20 percent of the small entities in the affected
industry.
Consistent with Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards,
a resin producing firm is classified as a small entity if it has less
than 1,000 employees, and is unaffiliated with a larger entity. Based
upon this, 5 of the 18 firms affected are classified as small.
Data were not readily available to compare compliance costs to
production costs (criterion 1) or to capital available to small firms
(criterion 3), because the needed data were considered proprietary by
those firms. Data were available to examine the remaining two criteria:
the potential for closure, and a comparison of compliance costs as a
percentage of sales.
No facilities are expected to close; therefore, the fourth criteria
was not met. The final criteria was not met either, because the
increase in annual compliance costs as a percentage of sales ranged
from 0.04 percent to 1.11 percent, and therefore, the increases were
not considered significant.
In conclusion, and 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. The basis for the certification is that the
economic impacts for small entities do not meet or exceed the criteria
in the Guidelines to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as shown
above. Further information on the initial RFA is available in the
background information package (see Supplementary Information section
near the beginning of this preamble).

G. 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

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

Dated: May 30, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-13924 Filed 6-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}