[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, HypalonTM 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 
HypalonTM that are associated with HypalonTM 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 m3 
(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 Pressurea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
HypalonTM............            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  1012 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