[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76408-76457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29767]



[[Page 76407]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 76408]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6899-9]
RIN 2060-AH68


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes amendments to the ``generic'' maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards to add national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for four additional 
source categories: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Carbon Black 
Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production. The generic 
MACT standards provide a structural framework allowing source 
categories with similar emission types and MACT control requirements to 
be covered under one subpart, thus promoting regulatory consistency in 
NESHAP development. The EPA has identified these four source categories 
as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), including cyanide 
compounds, acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, carbonyl sulfide, carbon 
disulfide, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, toluene, and 2,4 toluene 
diisocyanate (TDI). Benzene is a known human carcinogen, and 1,3 
butadiene is considered to be a probable human carcinogen. The other 
pollutants can cause noncancer health effects in humans. These proposed 
standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by 
requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting 
the application of MACT.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 5, 2001.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by December 26, 2000, a public hearing will be held on 
January 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate 
if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 
(6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-17, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. All technical comments 
pertaining solely to individual source categories should be submitted 
to the dockets established for the individual source categories (see 
Docket for individual docket numbers). The EPA requests a separate copy 
also be sent to Mr. Mark Morris (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
    Docket. Docket No. A-97-17 contains supporting information used in 
developing the generic MACT standards. Dockets established for each of 
the source categories proposed to be assimilated under the generic MACT 
standards with this proposal include: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
(Docket No. A-2000-14), Carbon Black Production (Docket No. A-98-10), 
Ethylene Production (Docket No. A-98-22), and Spandex Production 
(Docket No. A-98-25). These dockets include source category-specific 
supporting information. All dockets are located at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, Ground Floor, 401 M 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 
5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
proposed NESHAP, contact the following at the Emission Standards 
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Phone/facsimile/e-mail
         Information type                   Contact                     Group                    address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General..........................  Mark Morris..............  Organic Chemicals Group.  (919) 541-5416/(919) 541-
                                                                                         3470/ morris.mark
                                                                                         @epa.gov.
Cyanide chemicals manufacturing..  Keith Barnett............  Organic Chemicals Group.  (919) 541-5605/(919) 541-
                                                                                         3470/ barnett.keith
                                                                                         @epa.gov.
Carbon black production..........  John Schaefer............  Organic Chemicals Group.  (919) 541-0296/(919) 541-
                                                                                         3470/ schaefer.john
                                                                                         @epa.gov.
Ethylene production..............  Warren Johnson...........  Organic Chemicals Group.  (919) 541-5267/(919) 541-
                                                                                         3470/ johnson.warren
                                                                                         @epa.gov.
Spandex production...............  Elaine Manning...........  Waste and Chemical        (919) 541-5499/(919) 541-
                                                               Processes Group.          3470/ manning.elaine
                                                                                         @epa.gov.
Public hearing...................  Maria Noell..............  Organic Chemicals Group.  (919) 541-5607/(919) 541-
                                                                                         3470/ noell.maria
                                                                                         @epa.gov.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SUPLLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments

    Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to: 
[email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an 
ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption 
problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 
version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All comments and data 
submitted in electronic form must note the appropriate docket number 
(see ADDRESSES). No confidential business information (CBI) should be 
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mark Morris, 
c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel 
Hill Street, Durham NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information 
identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a 
submission when it is received by the EPA, the information may be made 
available to the public without further notice to the commenter.

Public Hearing

    Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to 
whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Maria Noell (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 2 days in advance of the public 
hearing. Persons

[[Page 76409]]

interested in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Noell to 
verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing 
will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, 
or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.

Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of the record compiled 
by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is a 
dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking 
process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, 
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of 
judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory 
text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for 
review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air 
Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying docket materials.

World Wide Web (WWW)

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed rule is also available on the WWW through the Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the rule will be 
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN 
HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Regulated Entities

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action 
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Examples of regulated
             Category                      NAICS code                 SIC code                  entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial.......................  325188, 325199...........  2819, 2869..............  Producers and
                                                                                         coproducers of hydrogen
                                                                                         cyanide and sodium
                                                                                         cyanide.
                                   325182...................  2895....................  Producers of carbon
                                                                                         black by thermal-
                                                                                         oxidative decomposition
                                                                                         in a closed system,
                                                                                         thermal decomposition
                                                                                         in a cyclic process, or
                                                                                         thermal decomposition
                                                                                         in a continuous
                                                                                         process.
                                   325110...................  2869....................  Producers of ethylene
                                                                                         from refined petroleum
                                                                                         or liquid hydrocarbons.
                                   325222...................  2824....................  Producers of spandex by
                                                                                         reaction spinning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1104 of the 
proposed subpart. If you have any questions regarding the applicability 
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person(s) listed in 
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. Why is the EPA proposing to include today's standards in the 
generic MACT standards?
    D. What are the proposed amendments to subpart YY and the 
subparts referenced by it?
II. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
    A. Introduction
    B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing
    C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing
    D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
III. Carbon Black Production
    A. Introduction
    B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Carbon Black Production
    C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Carbon 
Black Production
    D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
    E. Solicitation of Comments
IV. Ethylene Production
    A. Introduction
    B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Ethylene Production
    C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Ethylene 
Production
    D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
    E. Solicitation of Comments
V. Spandex Production
    A. Introduction
    B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Spandex Production
    C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Spandex 
Production
    D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulator Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601, et seq.
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

I. Background

A. What is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The 
categories of major sources covered by today's proposed NESHAP were 
listed on the following dates: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, July 
16, 1992 (57 FR 31576); Carbon Black Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 
28197); Ethylene Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197); and Spandex 
Production,

[[Page 76410]]

July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). A major source of HAP is defined as any 
stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous 
area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit, 
considering controls, in the aggregate, 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) 
(10 tons per year (TPY)) or more of any single HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr or 
more (25 TPY) of multiple HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT 
floor ensures that all major sources achieve the level of control 
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in 
each source category or subcategory. For new sources, NESHAP cannot be 
less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice 
by the best-controlled similar source. The NESHAP for existing sources 
can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot 
be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (or the best-performing 
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of cost, nonair quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. Why is the EPA Proposing to Include Today's Standards in the Generic 
MACT Standards?

    We are proposing NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, 
Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production 
source categories under the generic MACT standards to reduce the 
regulatory burden associated with the development of separate 
rulemakings. An owner or operator should consult the generic MACT 
standards for information on applicability of the standards to their 
source, compliance schedules, and standards. The generic MACT standards 
generally refer the owner or operator to other subparts for 
requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance.
    We are proposing to include the NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and 
Spandex Production source categories in the generic MACT standards to 
simplify the rulemaking process, to minimize the potential for 
duplicative or conflicting requirements, to conserve limited resources, 
and to ensure consistency of the air emissions requirements applied to 
similar emission points. We believe that the generic MACT regulatory 
framework is appropriate for these source categories because it allows 
us to incorporate specific applicability and control requirements that 
reflect our decisions on these source categories while also utilizing 
generic requirements previously established for similar emission 
sources that we have determined are also applicable here.
    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires that emission standards for 
control of HAP be prescribed unless, in our judgement, it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards. Section 112(h) 
identifies two conditions under which it is not considered feasible to 
prescribe or enforce emission standards. These conditions are: (1) If 
the HAP cannot be emitted through a conveyance device, or (2) if the 
application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources 
is not practicable due to technological or economic limitations. If 
emission standards are not feasible to prescribe or enforce, then we 
may instead promulgate equipment, work practice, design, or operational 
standards, or a combination of them.
    Common formats for emission standards include a percent reduction, 
concentration limit, or mass emission limit. In some instances, 
adoption of an emission standard may be feasible for certain sources 
within a category or subcategory and not for other sources within the 
same category or subcategory. In such cases, we may adopt both an 
emission standard and an alternative equipment, design, work practice, 
or operational standard, but only one type of standard will apply to a 
given source depending on the nature and configuration of that source.
    Because today's proposed standards reference several other subparts 
to control emissions, the format of the standards (i.e., emission 
standard or work practice) for each emission type is that of the 
subparts which are referenced. We developed the formats of the 
standards proposed today based on the development of the formats for 
the existing generic standards.

D. What Are the Proposed Amendments to Subpart YY and the Subparts 
Referenced By It?

    We are proposing to add sections to subpart YY and the subparts 
referenced by it that specify who has the authority to implement and 
enforce the subparts. These sections specify the authorities that will 
be retained by the EPA Administrator and the authorities that may be 
delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency. These proposed sections 
do not affect the stringency of the standards, nor would they increase 
the burden on a State, local, or tribal agency.
    The proposed amendments clarify appropriate methods for 
demonstrating compliance with percent reduction requirements and 
emission concentration limits on combustion devices. The proposed 
amendments allow owners and operators to use either Method 25, 25A 
(under certain specific conditions), or 18 to demonstrate compliance 
with the HAP percent emission reduction requirement. However, if Method 
18 is used, we clarify that only HAP that are present in the inlet to 
the device can be used to characterize the percent reduction across the 
device. Additionally, you must first determine which HAP are present in 
the inlet gas stream (i.e., uncontrolled emissions) using process 
knowledge or a screening procedure. When using Method 25 or 25A, you 
must measure the inlet and outlet mass emissions as carbon.
    We provided this clarification because when organic compounds are 
controlled by combustion processes, the organic pollutants emitted at 
the outlet of the device are not the same as those entering the inlet 
to the device and are typically unknown. Method 18, which measures 
specific, known compounds, will not yield accurate results unless it 
can be used to determine the percent reduction of known compounds 
across the device. Conversely, Method 25 measures total non-methane 
organic compounds and can be used to determine percent reduction across 
the combustion device regardless of how the combustion process affects 
the inlet and outlet streams. Under certain conditions (i.e., 
controlled emissions concentrations less than 50 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv)), Method 25A may be used in lieu of Method 25 for 
determining the reduction across a combustion device.
    In demonstrating compliance with the outlet concentration standard, 
you may use Method 18 or Method 25A. If

[[Page 76411]]

Method 18 is used, the resulting concentration must be reported as the 
compound or compounds measured; however, if Method 25A is used, the 
concentration must be reported as carbon.

II. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing

A. Introduction

1. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the 
Emissions?
    We have identified the following HAP emission sources at cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing facilities: (1) Process vents, (2) storage 
vessels, (3) equipment leaks, (4) transfer operations, and (5) 
wastewater treatment operations. We estimate that HAP emissions from 
process vents and equipment leaks account for more than 96 percent of 
the total HAP emissions from the source category.
    We estimate nationwide HAP emissions from the cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing industry to be 239 Mg/yr (263 TPY). The predominant HAP 
emitted from this source category include cyanide compounds (hydrogen 
cyanide (HCN) and sodium cyanide), acrylonitrile, and acetonitrile.
2. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the HAP Emitted?
    In the following paragraphs, we present a discussion of the effects 
of inhalation exposure to cyanide compounds, acrylonitrile, and 
acetonitrile.
    Cyanide Compounds. Acute inhalation exposure to high concentrations 
of cyanide compounds can be rapidly lethal. Acute inhalation of HCN at 
lower concentrations can cause a variety of adverse health effects in 
humans, such as weakness, headache, nausea, increased rate of 
respiration, and eye and skin irritation. Chronic inhalation exposure 
to cyanide compounds can result in effects on the central nervous 
system, such as headaches, dizziness, numbness, tremor, and loss of 
visual acuity. Other chronic exposure effects in humans include 
cardiovascular and respiratory effects, an enlarged thyroid gland, and 
irritation to the eyes and skin.
    Acrylonitrile. Acute inhalation exposure of workers to 
acrylonitrile has been associated with the occurrence of low-grade 
anemia, cyanosis, leukocytosis, kidney irritation, mild jaundice, and 
labored breathing. Symptoms include mucous membrane irritation, 
headaches, dizziness, nausea, apprehension and nervous irritability, 
muscle weakness, and convulsions.
    Chronic inhalation exposure of workers to acrylonitrile has been 
associated with headaches, nausea, and weakness. There are also several 
studies that indicate a statistically significant increase in the 
incidence of lung cancer of workers with chronic inhalation exposure to 
acrylonitrile.
    Acetonitrile. Acute inhalation exposure of humans to acetonitrile 
in concentrations up to 500 ppmv can cause irritation of mucous 
membranes, and higher concentrations have been associated with 
weakness, nausea, convulsions and death. Chronic inhalation exposure to 
acetonitrile results in cyanide poisoning from metabolic release of 
cyanide after absorption. The major effects associated with cyanide 
poisoning consist of headaches, numbness, and tremors.

B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing

1. What Is the Source Category To Be Regulated?
    The Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category includes 
facilities that are engaged in the manufacture of HCN or sodium 
cyanide: (1) By reaction of methane and ammonia over a catalyst (the 
Blausaure Methane Anlage (BMA) process), (2) by reaction of methane and 
ammonia in the presence of oxygen over a catalyst (the Andrussow 
process), or (3) as a by-product of the acrylonitrile production 
process (the Sohio production process). The source category also 
includes facilities that manufacture sodium cyanide via the 
neutralization process, sometimes referred to as the ``wet process,'' 
in which HCN reacts with sodium hydroxide solution, usually in a system 
that includes the evaporation of water and crystallization of the 
product.
2. What Is the Affected Source?
    For the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category, the 
affected source includes each cyanide chemicals manufacturing process 
unit, along with associated wastewater streams and equipment, that is 
located at a major source. A cyanide chemicals manufacturing process 
unit is the equipment assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct 
work that processes raw materials to manufacture, store, and transport 
a cyanide chemicals product. The proposed definition of ``cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing process unit'' also contains a list of 
equipment that is part of the process unit. This list includes reactors 
and associated unit operations; associated recovery devices; feed, 
intermediate, and product storage vessels; product transfer racks and 
connected ducts and piping; pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure-
relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or 
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; and control 
devices.
    We have identified four distinct processes used to produce cyanide 
chemicals. Therefore, the definition of affected source for cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing specifies that a cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing process unit may be any one of the following: an 
Andrussow process unit, a BMA process unit, a sodium cyanide process 
unit, or a Sohio HCN process unit. The definitions of each of these 
types of process units describes the process and delineates where the 
process unit begins and ends.
    The Andrussow and BMA process units begin with (and include) the 
raw material storage tanks and end at the point at which refined HCN 
enters a reactor in a downstream process or is shipped offsite.
    A Sohio HCN process unit, in which HCN is produced as a byproduct 
of acrylonitrile, begins at the point where the HCN leaves the unit 
operation where the HCN is separated from acrylonitrile. This unit 
operation is often referred to as the ``light ends column.'' As with 
all the other HCN process units, the Sohio HCN process unit ends at the 
point at which refined HCN enters a reactor in a downstream process or 
is shipped offsite.
    The sodium cyanide process unit begins just prior to the unit 
operation where refined HCN is reacted with sodium hydroxide and ends 
at the point just prior to where the solid sodium cyanide product is 
shipped offsite or enters a reactor in a downstream process.
3. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards?
    We are proposing NESHAP that would regulate HAP emissions from 
process vents from continuous unit operations, storage vessels storing 
HCN product, transfer operations, wastewater, and equipment leaks (from 
compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, pumps, sampling 
connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and 
instrumentation systems). We are proposing the same requirements for 
existing and new sources, except for wastewater. The following are 
summaries of the proposed requirements for each type of emission point.
    a. Process Vents from Continuous Unit Operations. For process vents 
from continuous unit operations, we are proposing different standards 
for each of the four types of cyanide chemicals manufacturing process 
units. For each

[[Page 76412]]

process unit type, we are proposing that overall HAP emissions from the 
process vents within the process unit be reduced by a specified amount. 
The required emissions reductions would depend on the type of process 
unit. The owner or operator would have the option of controlling some 
vents and not others; or controlling all vents to different levels, as 
long as the overall process unit process vent HAP emissions standard is 
achieved. We are also proposing that owners or operators may comply by 
reducing emissions of HAP from each individual process vent to a 
concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion 
device is the control device and supplemental combustion air is used to 
combust the emissions). The proposed emissions reductions requirements 
are summarized below by type of cyanide chemicals manufacturing 
process.
    Andrussow and BMA HCN production process unit. Except during 
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, we are proposing that HAP 
emissions from process vents from Andrussow and BMA HCN production 
process units be reduced by 99 weight-percent or to a concentration of 
20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the 
control device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust the 
emissions).
    During periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction, we are 
proposing that process vent HAP emissions be vented through a closed 
vent system to a flare, or reduced from each process vent by 98 weight-
percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen 
if a combustion device is the control device and supplemental 
combustion air is used to combust the emissions).
    Sohio HCN production process unit. For process vents from Sohio HCN 
production process units, we are proposing that overall process vent 
HCN emissions from the process unit be reduced by 98 weight-percent or 
to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a 
combustion device is the control device and supplemental combustion air 
is used to combust the emissions), or by venting emissions to a flare.
    Sodium cyanide production process units (wet-end and dry-end 
process vents). In the proposed rule, we define wet-end process vents 
as process vents that originate from the reactor, crystallizer, or any 
other unit operation in the wet end of the sodium cyanide process unit; 
and we define dry-end process vents as process vents originating from 
the drum filter or any other unit operation in the dry end of a sodium 
cyanide manufacturing process unit. We are proposing that overall HAP 
emissions from wet-end process vents be reduced by 98 weight-percent or 
to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a 
combustion device is the control device and supplemental combustion air 
is used to combust the emissions), or by venting emissions to a flare. 
We are proposing requirements that overall HAP emissions from dry-end 
process vents be reduced by 98 weight-percent.
    b. Storage Vessels. We are proposing that HAP emissions from 
storage vessels that contain HCN be vented through a closed vent system 
to a flare or any combination of control devices that reduces HAP 
emissions by 98 weight-percent.
    c. Transfer Operations. We are proposing requirements to control 
emissions for each transfer rack that is used to load HCN into tank 
trucks or rail cars by venting emissions through a closed vent system 
to a flare or any combination of control devices that reduces emissions 
of HCN by 98 weight-percent.
    d. Equipment Leaks. We are proposing requirements to control HCN 
emissions through the implementation of a leak detection and repair 
(LDAR) program for equipment that contains or contacts HCN and operates 
300 hours or more per year.
    We are proposing that an owner or operator may comply with the rule 
by complying with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, National Emission 
Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control Level 1; or 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart UU, National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control 
Level 2. The provisions of these subparts control emissions from 
equipment leaks by work practices (e.g., inspection for leaks, 
instrument monitoring) and equipment specifications. Both of these 
subparts require that you inspect equipment for leaks and repair 
detected leaks.
    e. Wastewater. We are proposing control requirements for HAP 
emissions from process wastewater streams at new facilities where the 
process water contains HAP that are discarded from a cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing process unit. We are proposing that the HAP emissions 
from the process wastewater must be suppressed while the wastewater is 
being conveyed to a treatment device, and we are specifying 
requirements for the controls to reduce the HCN and acetonitrile 
concentration in the process wastewater. We are proposing that the 
treatment device achieve 95 percent removal of HAP, and that vents on 
the treatment device be controlled to reduce HAP emissions by 98 
percent.
4. What Are the Testing and Initial and Continuous Compliance 
Requirements?
    We are proposing testing and initial and continuous compliance 
requirements that are, where appropriate, based on procedures and 
methods that we have previously developed and used for emission point 
sources similar to those for which standards are being proposed today. 
For example, we are proposing control applicability determination 
procedures, performance tests, and test methods to determine whether a 
process vent stream is required to apply control devices and to 
demonstrate that the allowed emission levels are achieved when controls 
are applied. The proposed requirements are dependent on the control 
device selected.
    We are proposing control applicability determination procedures to 
measure process vent flow rate and process vent HAP concentration 
measurement. The proposed test methods parallel what we have used for 
process vent organic HAP emission point sources in previous standards 
(e.g., the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)). For measuring vent stream 
flow rate, we propose the use of Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A. For measuring total vent stream HAP 
concentration to determine whether it is below a specified level, we 
propose the use of Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    Additionally, we are proposing to require initial performance tests 
for all control devices other than flares and certain boilers and 
process heaters used as control devices for HAP emissions from process 
vents. As with the HON, we are not proposing a requirement to perform 
an initial performance test for boilers and process heaters larger than 
44 megawatts (MW) (150 million British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr)) 
because they operate at high temperatures and residence times. Analysis 
shows that when vent streams are introduced into the flame zone of 
these boilers and process heaters, greater than 98 weight-percent of 
organic HAP emissions are reduced, or an outlet concentration of 20 
ppmv organic HAP is achieved. For flares, a percent reduction or outlet 
concentration measurement is not feasible. Therefore, we determined 
that a performance test is not necessary if the control device is a 
boiler, a process heater larger than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr), or a 
flare. For all other types of control devices, the proposed NESHAP 
require the owner or operator to conduct a performance test to 
demonstrate that

[[Page 76413]]

the control device can achieve the required control level and to 
establish operating parameters to be maintained to demonstrate 
continuous compliance. The proposed requirements for cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing list the parameters that can be monitored for combustion 
devices. For other control devices, we require that an owner or 
operator establish site-specific parameter ranges for monitoring 
purposes through the Notification of Compliance Status report and 
operating permit. Parameters selected are required to be good 
indicators of continuous control device performance.
    In addition to testing and monitoring of emissions control 
equipment, we are also proposing that the closed vent system that 
routes emissions to control equipment be initially and annually tested 
for HAP emission leaks (i.e., measurement greater than 500 ppmv). If a 
leak is detected, we would require that you eliminate the leak and 
monitor equipment (no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is 
detected).
5. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?
    We are proposing notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in accordance with the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A) and other previously promulgated NESHAP for similar source 
categories.
    We are proposing that owners or operators of cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing affected sources submit the following four types of 
reports: (1) Initial Notification, (2) Notification of Compliance 
Status, (3) periodic reports, and (4) other reports. Records of 
reported information and other information necessary to document 
compliance with the standards would be required to be kept for 5 years. 
Equipment design records would be required to be kept for the life of 
the equipment.
    For the Initial Notification, we are proposing that you list the 
cyanide chemicals manufacturing processes at your facility, and which 
provisions may apply. The Initial Notification must also state whether 
your facility can achieve compliance by the specified compliance date. 
You must submit this notification within 1 year after the date of 
promulgation for existing sources, and within 180 days before 
commencement of construction or reconstruction of an affected source.
    For the Notification of Compliance Status report, we are proposing 
that you submit the information necessary to demonstrate that 
compliance has been achieved, such as the results of performance tests 
and design analyses. For each test method that you use for a particular 
kind of emission point (e.g., process vent), you must submit one 
complete test report. This notification must also include the specific 
range established for each monitored parameter for each emission point 
for demonstrating continuous compliance, and the rationale for why this 
range indicates proper operation of the control device.
    For periodic reports, we are proposing that you report periods when 
the values of monitored parameters are outside the ranges established 
in the Notification of Compliance Status report. For process vents, 
records of continuously monitored parameters must be kept. For some 
emission source types, such as storage vessels, equipment (e.g., 
valves, pumps), and certain control devices (e.g., flares), periodic 
inspections or measurements are required instead of continuous 
monitoring. Records that such inspections or measurements were 
performed must be kept, but results are included in your periodic 
report only if there is problem. For example, for equipment associated 
with a cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit, inspections and/or 
leak detection monitoring records must be kept. However, the results of 
such monitoring must be submitted in the periodic report only if a leak 
is detected. We are proposing that the owner or operator submit these 
reports semiannually, unless monitored parameter values for a 
particular emission point are outside the established range greater 
than a specified percentage of the operating time, or if a problem is 
found during periodic inspections or measurements, whereby quarterly 
reporting is required.
    Other proposed reporting requirements include reports to notify the 
regulatory authority before or after a specific event (e.g., if a 
process change is made, requests for extension of repair period).

C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing

1. How Did EPA Select the Source Category?
    On February 12, 1998 (63 FR 7155), we combined the HCN production 
and sodium cyanide production source categories into a new major source 
category called Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing. Some facilities 
produce sodium cyanide and HCN in the same process train (i.e., using 
the same or linked equipment); therefore, we decided to combine these 
two source categories because it makes more sense to have facilities 
subject to one rule rather than two separate rules for different parts 
of their process.
    The Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category includes 
facilities that manufacture HCN using any of the following methods: The 
BMA production process, the Andrussow production process, and as a 
byproduct of the Sohio HCN production process. The source category also 
includes facilities that manufacture sodium cyanide via the 
neutralization process (or the ``wet process''). We defined the source 
category to include these specific production processes because these 
are the only processes we identified that manufacture HCN and sodium 
cyanide in the United States.
    Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA gives us the authority to ``* * * 
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a 
category * * *'' when developing standards. Subcategories, or subsets 
of similar emission sources within a source category, may be defined if 
technical differences in emissions characteristics, processes, control 
device applicability, or opportunities for pollution prevention exist 
within the source category (57 FR 31576). Specific examples of these 
differences include the types of products, process equipment 
differences, the type and level of emission controls, emissions 
sources, and any other factors that would impact a MACT standard.
    We did not identify differences in the four cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing processes (the Andrussow process, the BMA process, the 
Sohio HCN production process, and the sodium cyanide process) included 
in the source category that we believe meet the criteria presented 
above for subcategorization. All four processes emit cyanide chemicals 
(HCN and sodium cyanide), acetonitrile, and/or acrylonitrile. In 
addition, facilities using each process type commonly utilize some form 
of combustion to reduce HAP emissions from point sources. Furthermore, 
the type of cyanide chemicals manufacturing process does not affect the 
ability of a facility to reduce fugitive HAP emissions. Therefore, 
because these processes have similar emissions characteristics, control 
device applicability, and opportunities for pollution prevention, we 
determined that it was not necessary to divide this source category 
into subcategories.

[[Page 76414]]

2. How Did EPA Select the Affected Source?
    The affected source is the group of unit operations, equipment, and 
emission points that are subject to the proposed NESHAP. The affected 
source can be defined as narrowly as a single item of equipment or as 
broadly as all equipment at the plant site that is used to manufacture 
the product that defines the source category. A major factor that we 
considered in selecting the affected source for the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source category was the relationship between the affected 
source definition and the format of the standards.
    The format of the standards for process vents is a process-unit-
wide emission limit (i.e., specified percent emissions reductions from 
all process vents in the process unit). This provides an owner or 
operator the option of selecting the most cost-effective level of 
control for each individual process vent, as long as the overall 
emissions limit is achieved. To accommodate this format, it was 
necessary to define the affected source to include all process vents in 
a process unit.
    The affected source also defines the collection of equipment that 
you would evaluate to determine whether replacement of components at an 
existing affected source would qualify as reconstruction. If we define 
the affected source narrowly, it could affect whether some parts of a 
process unit would be subject to new source or existing source 
requirements. Since we are proposing the same requirements for existing 
and new sources for cyanide chemicals manufacturing emission points, 
the only implication for narrowly defining the cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing affected source would be when the source would have to 
comply with the standards.
    We are proposing the process unit that manufactures cyanide 
chemicals as the foundation for the affected source. We are proposing a 
definition of the cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit as a 
collection of equipment, assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct 
work, that is used to process raw materials to manufacture, store, and 
transport a cyanide chemicals product.
    Of the five types of emission points at facilities that manufacture 
cyanide chemicals (process vents, storage vessels, equipment leaks, 
transfer operations, and wastewater), all except wastewater are 
typically located within a cyanide chemicals production process unit. 
Wastewater that is generated within a process unit is often routed 
outside the unit for treatment and discharge. In addition, some 
equipment (i.e., pumps, valves, compressors, etc.) that is used to 
transport chemicals may be located outside of the cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing process unit. Therefore, we have proposed a definition of 
the affected source to include each cyanide chemicals manufacturing 
process unit and all associated waste management units, maintenance 
wastewater, and equipment in HAP service.
    Cyanide chemicals production process units are seldom ``stand-
alone'' facilities. Rather, the production of cyanide chemicals is 
usually part of an integrated facility. Therefore, the point at which a 
cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit begins and ends is not 
always obvious. Because of this, it is necessary to define the 
boundaries of the affected source.
    As discussed previously, four distinct processes are included in 
the source category. The proposed rule specifies that a cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing process unit can be either an Andrussow process 
unit, a BMA process unit, a sodium cyanide process unit, or a Sohio HCN 
production process unit. The boundaries of the affected source are 
described in the definitions of the individual types of process units. 
We determined that a common demarcation of the end point of the 
affected source is appropriate for all four process types, but the 
beginning point needs to be defined separately for each type of process 
unit.
    Cyanide chemicals product is either loaded into a tank truck or 
railcar, or is used as a raw material in another process at the plant 
site or an adjacent plant site. Other production processes for which 
HCN may be used as a raw material include processes that produce 
acetone cyanohydrin (an intermediate of the methyl methacrylate 
production process), adiponitrile, chelating agents, or cyanuric 
chloride. We considered including downstream production process HCN 
emission points under the cyanide chemicals affected source. However, 
we determined that production processes where HCN is used as a raw 
material are covered, or will be covered, by other 40 CFR part 63 
subparts. For example, chelating agents production will be covered by 
the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP, scheduled for 
proposal in the summer of 2000. Cyanuric chloride is an intermediate 
product and will be covered by either the Pesticide Active Ingredients 
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM) or the Miscellaneous Organic 
Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP. Acetone cyanohydrin and adiponitrile 
production are subject to the HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart F).
    Therefore, we determined that the affected source should end at the 
point that the cyanide chemicals product is either shipped offsite or 
is used as a raw material in a downstream process. This means that 
piping and associated equipment (pumps, valves, etc.) up to the point 
where the cyanide chemicals are used in the downstream process (i.e., 
at the reactor) would be included in the cyanide chemicals affected 
source. We believe that this is necessary to ensure that potential HAP 
emissions from this equipment are covered by a 40 CFR part 63 subpart.
    As noted above, we believe that the starting point of the affected 
source needs to be defined for each type of process. The Andrussow and 
BMA processes are straightforward because raw materials are reacted to 
produce HCN. Therefore, for these two processes, we defined the 
beginning of the affected source as the point at which raw materials 
are stored.
    In the Sohio HCN production process, the primary product produced 
is acrylonitrile, and HCN is manufactured as a byproduct. The 
acrylonitrile production process is covered under the HON, although HCN 
emissions are not subject to control under the HON. Therefore, we 
needed to determine the point in the Sohio HCN production process where 
the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category begins.
    We considered including all parts of the Sohio production process 
that contained HCN. However, because the Sohio production process is 
covered under the HON, many of the streams containing HCN may already 
be controlled to the HON level of control. Although HCN is not covered 
by the HON (i.e., HCN is not included in table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart F), the types of control devices (i.e., combustion devices) 
utilized by Sohio facilities to comply with the HON also reduce HCN 
emissions. As a result, we concluded that the burden of overlapping 
standards would not justify the very small potential for additional HCN 
reductions.
    We wanted to define a point so that there would be no overlap 
between a HON affected source and a cyanide chemicals affected source. 
There is a point in the Sohio production process where the HCN is 
separated from the acrylonitrile, typically in a unit operation 
referred to as the ``light ends column.'' Therefore, we defined the 
beginning of the Sohio HCN production process unit as the point the HCN 
leaves the unit operation where the HCN is

[[Page 76415]]

separated from the acrylonitrile. Because of our concern about the 
potential for overlapping requirements affecting a Sohio production 
process unit, we are specifically requesting comment on our proposed 
definition for the cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected source.
    A primary raw material used in the production of sodium cyanide is 
HCN. Hydrogen cyanide that is produced in an Andrussow, BMA, or Sohio 
production process unit can be fed directly into a process to make 
sodium cyanide. Therefore, it was necessary to delineate the boundaries 
between an HCN process unit and a sodium cyanide process unit. Most 
commonly, HCN is refined in the HCN process and then fed into a 
reactor, where it is reacted with sodium hydroxide to form sodium 
cyanide. Therefore, we defined the beginning of the sodium cyanide 
process unit as the unit operation where refined HCN is reacted with 
sodium hydroxide. However, some facilities do not refine the HCN prior 
to reacting it with sodium hydroxide. In these cases, raw HCN is 
usually sent to an absorber, where it is absorbed into a sodium 
hydroxide solution to form sodium cyanide. Since the emission stream 
from this absorber is comparable to the emission stream from an 
absorber in a HCN process, we considered this absorber to be part of 
the HCN process unit, rather than part of the sodium cyanide process 
unit. Therefore, in situations where raw HCN is reacted with sodium 
hydroxide prior to being refined, we clarified that the sodium 
hydroxide process begins at the point that the aqueous sodium cyanide 
stream leaves the unit operation where the sodium cyanide is formed.
    Additionally, in order to define the point at which the sodium 
cyanide production process begins, we are proposing definitions for raw 
HCN and refined HCN. In the proposed NESHAP, we have defined raw HCN as 
HCN that has not been through the refining process and usually has an 
HCN concentration less than 10 percent. We have also proposed a 
definition of refined HCN to mean the HCN that has been through the 
refining process and usually contains an HCN concentration greater than 
99 percent. We are specifically requesting comments on the proposed 
definitions for raw HCN and refined HCN, as well as the point at which 
the sodium cyanide production process begins.
3. How Did EPA Select the Basis and Level of the Proposed NESHAP for 
Existing and New Sources?
    We identified 16 facilities that manufacture cyanide chemicals 
which we believe represent the entire industry in the United States. 
For existing sources, the CAA requires us to establish emission 
standards that are at least as stringent as ``* *ensp;* the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best performing five sources * * 
*'' for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. For new 
sources, emission standards ``* * * shall not be less stringent than 
the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best 
controlled similar source.''
    The term ``average'' is not defined in section 112(d)(3) of the 
CAA. We have the discretion within the statutory framework to set MACT 
floors at appropriate levels, and we have interpreted the term 
``average'' to mean the mean, median, mode, or some other measure of 
central tendency (59 FR 29196).
    We chose the median (the value in a set of measurements below and 
above which there are an equal number of values, when the measurements 
are arranged in order of magnitude) as the measure of central tendency 
in this MACT floor analysis for existing sources. We found that, for 
this source category, the arithmetic mean resulted in a level of 
control that was not representative of any actual control technology. 
Using a median allowed us to select a MACT floor that corresponds 
directly to the level of control represented by a particular control 
device. Also, because the data set we used in our MACT floor analysis 
consists of data from only 16 facilities, we did not use a mode, which 
is more appropriate for large data sets.
    We also considered whether to separate emission sources into groups 
by emission source type (e.g., tanks, process vents, fugitive emission 
sources) based on equipment type, equipment size, equipment contents, 
stream characteristics, or control device applicability. Because of 
differences in emissions characteristics and vent stream 
characteristics, we separated the emission points in the Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing source category by emission source type. We 
grouped the emission points into one of the following: Process vents, 
storage vessels, wastewater streams, equipment leaks, or transfer 
operations.
    In addition, we may make grouping decisions within each emission 
source type based on equipment type, equipment size, equipment 
contents, stream characteristics, or other elements that could affect 
the emission potential of an emission point or the ability to reduce 
emissions from that emission point. We evaluated whether the different 
types of cyanide chemicals manufacturing processes should be considered 
for each emission source type. We concluded that for storage vessels, 
equipment leaks, wastewater, and transfer operations, the elements that 
can affect the emission potential of an emission point or the ability 
to reduce emissions from the emission point were not influenced by the 
type of process. For example, the ability to control HCN emissions from 
a storage vessel is not dependent on the type of process.
    We did create groupings for process vents. Because of similarities 
in the types of unit operations and types of control devices being used 
in the Andrussow and BMA production processes, we grouped and analyzed 
these two processes together to determine the MACT floor for process 
vents. We did not include process vents from the Sohio HCN production 
process in this group, primarily because of the differences in process 
operations and controls. Specifically, the Sohio HCN production process 
vents typically have much lower emissions and are typically controlled 
by using a flare, while emissions from process vents in the Andrussow 
and BMA processes are somewhat higher and are typically controlled by a 
boiler.
    Process vents in the sodium cyanide process were separated into 
wet-end process vents and dry-end process vents to determine the MACT 
floor. We did this primarily because emissions from dry-end process 
vents are particulate cyanide chemicals (i.e., solid sodium cyanide), 
rather than gaseous emissions. Therefore, the types of controls used in 
the dry end may be different from those used in the wet end.
    As previously discussed, the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source 
category has fewer than 30 sources, so the MACT floor must be based on 
the best performing five sources. We determined the best performing 
cyanide chemicals manufacturing process units for each emission source 
type: Process vents (Andrussow/BMA process, Sohio HCN production 
process, wet-end sodium cyanide process vents, and dry-end sodium 
cyanide process vents), storage vessels, transfer operations, equipment 
leaks, and wastewater. If data were not available for each emission 
source type at five or more facilities, we determined the MACT floor 
based on the number of facilities for which data were available. The

[[Page 76416]]

following paragraphs discuss the MACT floor analysis for each emission 
source type.
    a. Process Vents. We considered two basic measures of performance 
for determining the best performing sources. We considered a HAP 
emission factor, expressed as HAP emissions per unit of production. We 
also considered an overall process unit HAP emission reduction, 
expressed as a percent HAP reduction. Emission factors were calculated 
for each cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit, but we rejected 
these factors for determining the MACT floor because we could not 
verify information on production rates, and the accuracy and bases of 
the emission rates were not always apparent. We, therefore, used the 
percent emission reduction across the process as the basis for ranking 
facilities within each process type because a percent emission 
reduction is less sensitive to the mass emission rate and does not rely 
on production rate. This approach was selected to determine the MACT 
floor levels of control for process vents, and the proposed standard is 
expressed as a required percent HAP emission reduction.
    The following discussion presents the results of our MACT floor 
analysis for process vents for each type of cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing process.
    Andrussow/BMA process. In our MACT floor analysis, we considered 
nine facilities that use the Andrussow or BMA process. All nine 
facilities reported that they use combustion to control HAP emissions 
from process vents. Of these nine facilities, we had control efficiency 
data for seven facilities. The emission reduction for all of the five 
best performing facilities is 99 weight-percent or greater. Therefore, 
we concluded that the MACT floor for existing sources is 99 weight-
percent.
    To determine the MACT floor for new sources, we attempted to 
determine the best performing source. We evaluated the reported control 
efficiencies for the five best performing sources in this group. All of 
the sources apply some form of combustion; however, we were unable to 
identify any technical basis for the reported differences in control 
efficiencies for these combustion devices. Therefore, we selected the 
MACT floor for new sources as 99 weight-percent.
    All of the five best performing sources controlled emissions during 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction events using a flare. In general, we 
assume that a properly operated flare will achieve an emission 
reduction of 98 weight-percent. Therefore, we determined that the MACT 
floor for startup, shutdown, or malfunction events for new and existing 
process vents is a flare or a 98 weight-percent emission reduction.
    To select the proposed MACT for process vents from the Andrussow/
BMA process, we considered above-the-floor options for existing and new 
sources. As previously discussed, we could not identify the technical 
basis for the differences in reported emissions reductions for the 
combustion devices represented by the MACT floor. Thus, all of the 
combustion devices included in the MACT floor analysis were considered 
to be equivalent. Therefore, we did not identify a control technology 
more stringent than the MACT floor for process vents in the Andrussow 
or BMA processes. We are proposing that MACT for process vents from the 
Andrussow/BMA production process is the level of control represented by 
the MACT floor (i.e., a 99 weight-percent emission reduction).
    Sodium cyanide (wet-end) process. We had information for three 
sodium cyanide facilities that have wet-end process vents. One facility 
had uncontrolled process vents, and the other two facilities each had 
an emission reduction of 98 weight-percent based on the use of 
combustion devices and a median emission reduction of 98 weight-
percent. Therefore, we determined that the MACT floor for new and 
existing sources is 98 weight-percent based on the use of a combustion 
device.
    To select MACT for wet-end process vents, we considered the impacts 
of above-the-floor options for existing and new sources. As shown 
above, two of the three sodium cyanide facilities included in the MACT 
floor analysis are controlled, and we believe that the incremental 
costs (and the associated cost effectiveness) of achieving a small 
emission reduction greater than 98 weight-percent would be 
disproportional to the additional HAP emission reduction that would be 
achieved (i.e., it would not be cost effective to require a facility to 
remove an existing combustion device and replace it with one that gets 
an additional 1 percent emission reduction). As a result, we did not 
perform an analysis of above-the-floor control technologies for wet-end 
process vents at sodium cyanide production facilities. Therefore, we 
are proposing that MACT for process vents in the wet end of sodium 
cyanide production facilities for existing and new sources is a 98 
weight-percent emission reduction (i.e., the MACT floor).
    Sodium cyanide (dry-end) process. Information was available for two 
sodium cyanide facilities with dry-end process vents. We had control 
efficiency data for both of these facilities. The control efficiencies 
were 83 weight-percent based on a cyclonic dust collector and 98 
weight-percent based on a caustic scrubber, with the average emission 
reduction being 90 weight-percent. Therefore, we determined that the 
MACT floor for existing sources is 90 weight-percent and the MACT floor 
for new sources is 98 weight-percent.
    To select MACT for dry-end process vents at existing sources, we 
evaluated the impacts of the MACT floor for new sources. We estimate 
that the incremental cost effectiveness associated with raising the 
existing source dry-end process vent emission reduction requirement 
from 90 weight-percent to 98 weight-percent is reasonable; therefore, 
we selected 98 weight-percent as MACT for existing sources.
    We did not identify an option more stringent than the MACT floor 
for new sources. Therefore, we are proposing that MACT for dry-end 
process vents at new sources is the MACT floor.
    Sohio HCN production process. There are five facilities using the 
Sohio HCN production process that were considered in the MACT floor 
analysis. Of these five facilities, we have control efficiency data for 
four facilities. The emission reduction ranges from 97.8 to 98 weight-
percent. The median emission reduction for facilities for which there 
is available data is 98 weight-percent. Therefore, we determined that 
the MACT floor for new and existing sources is 98 weight-percent.
    To select MACT for process vents from the Sohio HCN production 
process, we considered the impacts of above-the-floor options for 
existing and new sources. Several of the facilities included in the 
MACT floor analysis are controlled, and we believe that the incremental 
costs (and the associated incremental cost effectiveness) of achieving 
a small emission reduction greater than 98 weight-percent would be 
disproportional to the additional HAP emission reduction that would be 
achieved (i.e., it would not be cost effective to require a facility to 
remove an existing combustion device and replace it with one that gets 
an additional 1 percent emission reduction). As a result, we did not 
perform an analysis of above-the-floor control technologies for process 
vents at Sohio HCN production facilities. Therefore, we are proposing 
that MACT for process vents in Sohio HCN production facilities for 
existing and new sources is the MACT floor.

[[Page 76417]]

    Alternative standards and compliance options (all process vents). 
Many of the facilities for which we have data control every process 
vent to a degree that would meet the proposed level of control. 
Clearly, the overall reduction would comply with the required reduction 
if each vent was achieving the required emission reduction. In this 
situation, we did not believe that owners or operators needed to 
calculate a process-unit-wide emission reduction. Therefore, we added 
the option that each process vent could be controlled to the required 
level. We believe that this would reduce the burden of demonstrating 
compliance for owners and operators in this situation.
    In the preamble to the proposed New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) for Air Oxidation Unit Process (48 FR 48932, October 21, 1983), 
we stated that 20 ppmv is the lowest outlet concentration achievable by 
combustion of low concentration streams (i.e., streams with 
concentrations less than around 2,000 ppmv). In addition, we expanded 
the application of this lower bound concentration performance standard 
to control/recovery devices other than incinerators (61 FR 43698, 
August 26, 1996) controlling volatile organic compounds. Therefore, for 
all instances where the selected level of control is a specified 
percent reduction, we are proposing an alternative that would allow 
compliance by achieving an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected 
to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the control device and 
supplemental combustion air is used to combust the emissions) for each 
individual emission point (i.e., this option is not allowed if you are 
complying with a process-unit-wide process vent requirement). We 
believe that 20 ppmv is a reasonable level achievable for low-
concentration streams. The exceptions to this are the requirements for 
sodium cyanide dry-end process vents. Since the emissions from these 
dry-end vents are particulate, the rationale for the 20 ppmv 
alternative is not applicable.
    Forms of the standards (all process vents). The proposed standards 
for process vents include a combination of forms. For process vent 
streams controlled by control devices other than a flare, we selected 
the form of a numerical emission limitation (a weight-percent reduction 
or a concentration), either on an individual vent basis, or process-
wide. This form was chosen based on the controls used at cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing facilities and the data available for our MACT 
analysis.
    For vent streams controlled by a flare, we selected a form 
consisting of equipment and operating specifications, consistent with 
the form for flare requirements that we have specified for other 
industries. This is because it is very difficult to measure the 
emissions from a flare to determine its efficiency.
    b. Storage Tanks. Information was available for HCN storage vessels 
at eight facilities. The HCN storage vessels are controlled at all 
eight facilities: Five with a flare as the primary control device, 
which we assume achieves 98 weight-percent emission reduction; one with 
a scrubber, which was reported to achieve an emission reduction of 98 
weight-percent; one with a scrubber and flare in series; and one with a 
gas absorption column. We did not have control efficiency data for the 
facility with the scrubber and flare in series or for the facility with 
the gas absorption column; therefore, these facilities were not 
considered in the MACT floor analysis for storage vessels. The 
remaining facilities were ranked by emission reduction, and the five 
best performing facilities were determined to be those with the highest 
percentage emission reduction. The emission reduction associated with 
all of the top five facilities was 98 weight-percent. Thus, we 
determined the MACT floor for new and existing storage vessels to be an 
emission reduction of 98 weight-percent through the use of a flare or 
other control device.
    To select the proposed MACT for storage vessels, we did not 
identify any control technologies more stringent than the MACT floor 
that would be applicable. Although combustion technologies exist that 
could achieve an emission reduction higher than the MACT floor level of 
98 weight-percent, we believe that due to the intermittent nature of 
storage vessel emissions, flares are the most appropriate combustion 
control technology available for this emission source type. Thus, we 
did not perform an above-the-floor analysis for storage vessels. 
Therefore, we are proposing that MACT for storage vessels for existing 
and new sources is the level of control represented by the MACT floor.
    The proposed storage vessel provisions include a combination of 
forms. For storage vessels that contain HCN that are controlled by a 
control device other than a flare, we are proposing an emission 
limitation in the form of a specified weight-percent requirement. We 
selected this form to give owners and operators the flexibility to 
install an applicable control technology to meet the MACT floor.
    For storage vessels controlled by venting emissions to a flare, we 
have selected a form consisting of equipment and operating 
specifications, consistent with the format for flare requirements that 
we have specified for other industries. This is because it is very 
difficult to measure the emissions from a flare to determine its 
efficiency.
    c. Equipment Leaks. We have information regarding equipment leak 
emission control programs for ten facilities. Four of these facilities 
are subject to the equipment leaks NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. 
Six facilities are subject to State equipment leak requirements. To 
define the five best performing facilities, we compared the State rules 
to subpart VV and concluded that subpart VV was either equivalent to, 
or more stringent than, the State rules. Therefore, the median facility 
was determined to be a facility subject to subpart VV. Thus, we 
determined that the MACT floor for new and existing equipment leaks is 
subpart VV.
    We identified one alternative that is more stringent than the MACT 
floor for equipment leaks. The equipment leak provisions in the HON are 
more stringent than the subpart VV level of control. The level of 
control in subpart VV is equivalent to the Generic MACT control level 
1, which is contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. The HON level of 
control is equivalent to the Generic MACT control level 2, which is 
contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU.
    The basic elements of both the level 1 and level 2 equipment leak 
programs are the same; however, level 2 requires connector monitoring 
and has a significantly lower leak definition. Due to the wide range of 
compliance options and performance-based incentives that reduce the 
monitoring frequencies, it is difficult to assess the incremental 
difference in costs between these two levels of control. In addition, 
due to the highly lethal nature of HCN, cyanide chemicals manufacturing 
process units are much more rigorously maintained than process units 
producing other, less lethal chemicals. Because of these factors, we do 
not believe that the additional emission reduction would justify the 
costs associated with requiring a cyanide manufacturing facility to 
comply with the HON program. Therefore, we concluded that it is not 
appropriate to require that existing and new sources comply with 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart UU.
    However, we recognize that many cyanide chemicals manufacturing 
process units are collocated with HON facilities. In fact, HCN produced 
in a

[[Page 76418]]

Sohio HCN production process is actually a byproduct of a HON process. 
For the sake of consistency, some owners or operators of cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing process units may prefer to comply with the HON 
equipment leak program. Therefore, we are proposing the option of 
complying with either 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT or UU.
    The form of the provisions for equipment leaks consists of work 
practice and equipment specifications. We have determined that it is 
not feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards because 
emissions cannot be emitted through a conveyance device, and the 
application of a measurement methodology is not practicable due to 
technological or economic limitations (57 FR 62608).
    We considered whether it is appropriate to require owners and 
operators to monitor all equipment components (i.e., connectors, 
flanges, valves). We concluded that there could be situations where the 
costs of monitoring equipment with very low HAP emission potential are 
not reasonable. Therefore, we are proposing an applicability cutoff for 
equipment components based on the amount of time the equipment contains 
or contacts HAP. We are proposing an applicability cutoff of 300 hours 
per year. We selected this cutoff based on what has been adopted under 
previously promulgated NESHAP for equipment containing or contacting 
organic HAP (i.e., the HON) because we had insufficient data on 
equipment leak emissions and control at cyanide manufacturing 
facilities.
    We are proposing to exempt open ended lines that contain HCN or 
acrylonitrile from the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts TT and 
UU. According to industry representatives, closing open ended lines 
that contain or contact HCN or acrylonitrile could potentially lead to 
trapped volumes of these chemicals, which could polymerize and raise 
significant safety concerns.
    d. Transfer Operations. We have information for HCN transfer 
operations at three cyanide chemicals facilities. Two of these 
facilities control emissions from transfer operations using a flare. 
The third facility routes HCN emissions from transfer operations to a 
vent scrubber with a flare as a backup. The emission reduction for all 
three of these facilities with transfer operations is reported to be 98 
weight-percent. Thus, we determined the MACT floor for new and existing 
transfer operations to be an emission reduction of 98 weight-percent 
through the use of a flare or other device.
    To select the proposed MACT for transfer operations, we did not 
identify any control technologies more stringent than the MACT floor 
that would be applicable. Although combustion technologies exist that 
could achieve an emission reduction higher than the MACT floor level of 
98 weight-percent, we believe that the intermittent nature of transfer 
operation emissions make flares the most appropriate combustion control 
technology for this emission source type. Thus, we did not perform an 
above-the-floor analysis for transfer operations. Therefore, we are 
proposing that MACT for transfer operations for existing and new 
sources is the level of control represented by the MACT floor.
    The proposed standards for transfer operations include a 
combination of forms. For transfer racks that are used to load HCN into 
tank trucks and rail cars that are controlled by control devices other 
than a flare, we are proposing an emission limitation in the form of a 
specified weight-percent requirement. This form was chosen based on 
controls used at cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities and the 
data available for our MACT analysis. We selected this form to give 
owners and operators the flexibility to implement an applicable control 
technology to meet the MACT floor.
    For transfer racks controlled by a flare, we selected a form 
consisting of equipment and operating specifications, consistent with 
the form for flare requirements that we have specified for other 
industries and emission points. This is because it is very difficult to 
measure the emissions from a flare to determine its efficiency.
    e. Wastewater Treatment Operations. Wastewater is generated from 
the Andrussow and BMA cyanide manufacturing processes. We had 
information available on the wastewater handling practices for seven 
facilities in the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category. All 
seven of these facilities have wastewater treatment units in place at 
their facility necessary to meet either their National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements if they are 
allowed to discharge directly to a body of navigable water, or to meet 
the requirements for discharging to a publicly owned treatment works 
facility if they have an indirect discharge permit. Therefore, the 
median of the top five facilities has a wastewater treatment system in 
place to meet permitted effluent discharge limits. These wastewater 
treatment systems are comprised of a series of tanks used for settling, 
neutralization, clarification, and in some cases, biodegradation (most 
commonly found at facilities with NPDES permits). All of these 
wastewater treatment tanks are open to the atmosphere.
    The wastewater generated from these cyanide chemicals manufacturing 
facilities tends to enter a collection system (typically a sewer) 
through drains, sumps, trenches, and hotwells in the process area. The 
collection system carries the wastewater from the process down to the 
wastewater treatment system. Our information on these cyanide 
manufacturing facilities does not indicate that there are controls in 
place to suppress HAP emission losses from the wastewater en route to 
the wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, the collection and drain 
system design is presumed to be typical of that found in other SOCMI 
facilities, in which these HAP emissions vent to the atmosphere through 
conveyance points such as junction boxes, man holes, and lift stations. 
The tanks in the wastewater treatment plant are open to the atmosphere, 
where further HAP losses occur through a combination of evaporation and 
mechanical agitation. Six of these seven facilities report that they 
have a biological treatment tank or open pond.
    We are aware that biological treatment units at SOCMI facilities 
are capable of achieving HAP emissions reductions. However, the 
biological treatment units at these cyanide manufacturing facilities 
were installed to meet requirements associated with discharge of the 
effluent. These units were not designed for the purpose of reducing HAP 
emissions to the ambient air, and we believe that any associated 
reductions of air emissions are insignificant. For this component of 
the wastewater treatment system to achieve significant reductions in 
air emissions, the wastewater in the drain and conveyance systems, both 
within the process and going down to the wastewater treatment system, 
must be designed such that HAP emissions are suppressed so that they 
can reach the biological treatment system. In addition, the tanks in 
the wastewater system prior to the biotreatment tank must also employ 
suppression controls.
    Site specific variability in performance of biotreatment tanks is 
significant. Although all of these facilities report a high level of 
removal of known HAP across their wastewater treatment systems, how 
much of the HAP that are actually destroyed, as opposed to stripped to 
the air, is unknown. The degree that HAP removal occurs through 
biological destruction is a function of many factors, including

[[Page 76419]]

the aeration rate, the biomass, the retention time in the tank, the 
biological degradation rate, and surface area. As noted in the 
promulgation preamble to the HON, ``* * * the variability in 
performance makes it difficult to quantify a required emission 
reduction for the purpose of setting a standard. Emission reductions 
for biological treatment systems can only be determined on a site-
specific basis * * *'' (59 FR 19423). Moreover, given the site-specific 
nature of these systems, it would be difficult to develop even a 
qualitative work practice standard based on the median of the top five 
of these facilities that would both be achievable across the source 
category and consistent with continued compliance with effluent 
discharge permits. For these reasons, we have determined that the MACT 
floor for existing sources is no further control requirements for 
wastewater beyond current practices.
    Two of the top five facilities report that they treat their process 
wastewater using stripping technology. One of these facilities sends 
their wastewater to a steam stripper, and the stripper effluent then 
goes to their wastewater treatment system. The other facility uses an 
air stripper and sends the stripper effluent to an ozonation step and 
then on to the wastewater treatment system. Both facilities control the 
vents on the strippers by 98 percent through thermal oxidation. The 
steam stripper is achieving 95 percent removal across the stripper. The 
air stripping system reports similar performance, although steam 
stripper performance is better understood in terms of its ability to 
remove HAP from wastewater and is generally considered a more widely 
applicable control technology for removing HAP from wastewater. 
Therefore, we have identified steam stripping achieving 95 percent HAP 
removal with 98 percent control of the stripper vent to be the MACT 
floor for new sources. We do not have any information that would aid us 
in setting an applicability cutoff for wastewater streams based on flow 
rate and HAP concentration. We do have information on the specifically-
named wastewater streams being sent to the steam stripper. Therefore, 
the new source MACT floor also specifies the streams that must be 
controlled.
    We are unaware of any technologies capable of performing at a 
higher control level than the steam stripping system representing the 
new source MACT floor. For this reason, we are not going beyond-the-
floor to set MACT for new sources. We then considered whether this same 
stripping technology with control of the stripper vent is an 
appropriate control technology beyond-the-floor for existing sources. 
Since these cyanide manufacturing processes are similar to other SOCMI 
type processes previously regulated under other subparts, we evaluated 
what levels of wastewater flow and HAP concentration were considered 
necessary to yield a reasonable cost effectiveness beyond-the-floor. 
Our available information on cyanide manufacturing wastewater indicates 
that the flow rates and HAP concentrations fall well below 
applicability cutoffs established under these previously issued 
subparts. For that reason, we believe that the cost effectiveness of 
going beyond-the-floor for existing cyanide manufacturing sources is 
not reasonable.
    We did not evaluate wastewater air emissions from sodium cyanide 
manufacturing wastewater. These process units typically have some type 
of water treatment that is part of the actual process unit. Vents from 
these treatment processes are considered to be part of the wet end 
production unit process vents and are regulated in the process vent 
portion of this proposed rule. We had no data indicating that the 
streams exiting these process units contain any HAP except for sodium 
cyanide, which is not volatile.
4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 
Reporting Requirements?
    We selected the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts YY, SS, TT, UU, and WW to 
demonstrate and document compliance with the cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing standards. The procedures and methods set out in these 
subparts are, where appropriate, based on procedures and methods that 
we previously developed for use in implementing standards for emission 
point sources similar to those being proposed for the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source category.
    General compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements that would apply across source categories and affected 
emission points are contained within 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY 
(Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1113). We specify the applicability 
assessment procedures necessary to determine whether an emission point 
is required to apply control. These requirements are dependent on the 
emission point for which control applicability needs to be assessed and 
the form of the applicability cutoff selected for an individual source 
category (e.g., HAP concentration cutoff level, above which, control is 
required).
    We selected emission point and/or control device-specific 
monitoring (including continuous monitoring), recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements included under common control requirement 
subparts promulgated for storage vessels (40 CFR part 63, subpart WW); 
equipment leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or TT); and closed vent 
systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel gas 
system or a process (40 CFR part 63, subpart SS). These subparts 
contain a common set of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements. We established these subparts to ensure consistency of 
the air emission requirements applied to similar emission points with 
pollutant streams containing gaseous HAP. The rationale for the 
establishment of these subparts and requirements contained within each 
subpart is presented in the proposal preamble for the source category 
requirements previously promulgated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY 
(63 FR 55186-55191).
    We believe that the compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements of subparts YY, SS, TT, and UU are appropriate 
for demonstrating and documenting compliance with the requirements 
proposed for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category. This 
is because these requirements were established for standards with 
similar form and similar emission points with pollutant streams of 
gaseous HAP for which we are requiring MACT compliance demonstration 
and documentation under this proposal.

D. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts?

1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
    Nationwide baseline HAP emissions from the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source category are estimated to be 238 Mg/yr (263 TPY). 
These proposed NESHAP will reduce HAP emissions by approximately 106 
Mg/yr (117 TPY). This is a 45 percent reduction from the baseline level 
for this source category and a 58 percent reduction for those 
facilities required to install controls to comply with the proposed 
NESHAP.
    We also estimate that the proposed NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source category will reduce emissions of volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) by 102 Mg/yr (113 TPY). We estimate that the proposed 
NESHAP will result in an increase in sulfur oxide (SOX) 
emissions of 7.3 Mg/

[[Page 76420]]

yr (8 TPY), an increase in nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions of 
10.3 Mg/yr (11.4 TPY), an increase in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions of 
42.1 Mg/yr (46.4 TPY), and an increase in particulate matter (PM) 
emissions of 0.3 Mg/yr (0.3 TPY). The increases in emissions result 
from the on-site combustion of fossil fuels and emission streams as 
part of control device operations.
2. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
    The total estimated capital cost of the proposed NESHAP for the 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category is $939,000. The total 
estimated annual cost of the proposed NESHAP is $2.4 million (fourth 
quarter 1998 dollars).
    We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the impacts the 
proposed NESHAP would have on the cyanide manufacturing market, 
consumers, and society. The total annualized social cost (in 1998 
dollars) of the proposed NESHAP on the industry is $2.4 million, which 
is much less than 0.001 percent of total baseline revenue for the 
affected sources. A screening analysis indicates that no individual 
firm affected by the proposed NESHAP would experience costs in excess 
of 0.001 percent of sales. For this reason, we believe that the impact 
of the proposed NESHAP will be minimal. No facility closures are 
expected as a result of the proposed NESHAP.
3. What Are the Nonair Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
    We believe that there would not be significant adverse nonair 
health, environmental, or energy impacts associated with the proposed 
NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category. This is 
supported by impacts analyses associated with the application of the 
control and recovery devices required under the proposed NESHAP. We 
determine impacts relative to the baseline that is set at the level of 
control in absence of the standards.
    Control of equipment leaks will reduce the amount of HAP-containing 
material that could be discharged to a facility's wastewater treatment 
stream through equipment washdowns or from stormwater runoff. The use 
of a scrubber for HAP control from vents results in an effluent 
wastewater stream from the scrubber that would add a small amount of 
wastewater to that already being handled at the facility's wastewater 
treatment system.
    There are minimal solid or hazardous waste impacts associated with 
the proposed NESHAP. A small amount of solid waste may result from 
replacement of equipment such as seals, packing, rupture disks, and 
other equipment components, such as pumps and valves. A minimal amount 
of solid or hazardous waste could be generated from the use of steam 
strippers to control wastewater emissions. The possible sources include 
organic compounds recovered in the steam stripper overheads condenser 
or solids removed during feed pretreatment.
    The energy demands associated with the control technologies for the 
proposed NESHAP include the need for additional electricity, natural 
gas, and fuel oil. The storage tank, transfer operations, equipment 
leak, and wastewater controls are not expected to require any 
additional energy. The total nationwide energy demands that would 
result from implementing the process vent controls are approximately 
3.1 x 1014 Joules per year.

III. Carbon Black Production

A. Introduction

1. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the 
Emissions?
    We evaluated the following potential HAP emission sources at carbon 
black facilities: (1) Process vents, (2) equipment leaks, (3) storage 
vessels, and (4) wastewater. Based on available information, we have 
discerned that process vents from the main unit filter comprise most of 
the HAP emissions from carbon black facilities. Process vent emissions 
consist of tailgas from the reactors. The reactor tailgas is sent to a 
baghouse where the carbon black is separated from the tailgas. The main 
unit filter is where the carbon black is separated from the tailgas. 
After separation of the carbon black product, most of the tailgas is 
emitted to the atmosphere or sent to a combustion control device. The 
process vents after the main unit filter consist of vents from unit 
operations involved in the processing of the carbon black into final 
product. Hazardous air pollutant emissions may occur from process vents 
after the main unit filter, but the amount of HAP emitted from these 
vents is very small compared to the amount emitted from process vents 
from the main unit filter.
    In our evaluation of equipment leaks, we found that leaks were not 
a significant source of HAP emissions for the Carbon Black Production 
source category. One of the reasons for this is the low vapor pressures 
of the raw materials used in the production process (i.e., the typical 
carbon black feedstock is less than 0.05 kilopascals).
    As with equipment leaks, our evaluation of the potential for HAP 
emissions from storage vessels indicated that they were not a 
significant source of emissions from carbon black production 
facilities. This is because the typical feedstock oil used in the 
carbon black production process is heavy fuel oil, which, because of 
its low vapor pressure, is not likely to be emitted to the atmosphere 
under normal operating conditions. In addition, the feedstock oil is 
nearly solid under standard pressure and temperature and typically 
needs to be heated to (and maintained at) 120 degrees Fahrenheit to 
allow it to flow as a liquid.
    In our evaluation of wastewater, we did not identify any wastewater 
emissions of consequence as a result of the carbon black production 
process. The process uses a quench tower to capture the product, and 
the effluent guidelines applicable to this source category require that 
there be no discharge of process wastewater to navigable waters from 
carbon black production facilities.
    We estimate 1996 baseline HAP emissions from the Carbon Black 
Production source category to be 7,000 Mg/yr (7,700 TPY). This estimate 
reflects emissions from process vents.
2. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the HAP Emitted?
    The principal HAP that we have identified as being associated with 
carbon black production facilities include carbon disulfide, carbonyl 
sulfide, and hydrogen cyanide. In the following paragraphs, we present 
a discussion on the effects of inhalation exposure to these compounds.
    Carbon disulfide. Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure of humans 
to carbon disulfide has caused changes in breathing and chest pains. 
Acute human inhalation exposure to carbon disulfide has also been 
associated with nausea, vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, headache, mood 
changes, lethargy, blurred vision, delirium, and convulsions.
    Chronic (long-term) carbon disulfide human exposure and inhalation 
studies indicate the potential for adverse neurologic effects. There is 
also a potential for reproductive effects in humans, such as decreased 
sperm count and menstrual disturbances, that have had chronic 
inhalation exposure to carbon disulfide. Developmental effects, 
including toxic effects to the embryo and malformations and functional 
and behavioral disturbances in offspring, have been observed in studies 
on laboratory animals with chronic inhalation exposure to carbon 
disulfide.

[[Page 76421]]

    Carbonyl sulfide. Acute inhalation exposure to carbonyl sulfide in 
high concentrations may cause narcotic effects in humans and may 
irritate eyes and skin. No information is available on the chronic 
effects of carbonyl sulfide in humans.
    Cyanide compounds. Acute inhalation exposure to high concentrations 
of cyanide compounds can be rapidly lethal. Acute inhalation of 
hydrogen cyanide at lower concentrations can cause a variety of adverse 
health effects in humans, such as weakness, headache, nausea, increased 
rate of respiration, and eye and skin irritation. Chronic inhalation 
exposure to cyanide compounds can result in effects on the central 
nervous system, such as headaches, dizziness, numbness, tremor, and 
loss of visual acuity. Other chronic inhalation exposure effects in 
humans include cardiovascular and respiratory effects, an enlarged 
thyroid gland, and irritation to the eyes and skin.

B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Carbon Black Production

1. What Is the Source Category To Be Regulated?
    We have defined the Carbon Black Production source category to 
include any facility that produces carbon black by the furnace black 
process, thermal black process, or the acetylene decomposition process. 
The furnace black process is a closed system thermal-oxidative 
decomposition process, the thermal black process is a cyclic thermal 
decomposition process, and the acetylene black process is a continuous 
thermal decomposition process. Carbon black is primarily used as a 
reinforcing agent for rubber. The largest use of carbon black is in the 
manufacture of automotive and truck tires.
2. What Is the Affected Source?
    We have defined the affected source to include each carbon black 
production process unit, along with associated process vents and 
equipment that are located at a major source, as defined in section 
112(a) of the CAA. We define a carbon black production process unit as 
the equipment assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct work to 
process raw materials used to manufacture, store, and transport a 
carbon black product.
3. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards?
    For existing and new sources, we are proposing the same 
requirements for process vents. For process vents that are associated 
with the main unit filter, we are proposing requirements to control HAP 
emissions by venting emissions through a closed vent system to a flare, 
or by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination 
of control devices that reduces emissions of HAP by 98 weight-percent. 
As an alternative to meeting a 98 percent by weight HAP emission limit, 
we are proposing that an owner or operator may comply with the NESHAP 
by reducing emissions of HAP from their process vents from continuous 
unit operations to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent 
oxygen if a combustion device is the control device and supplemental 
combustion air is used to combust the emissions).
4. What Are the Testing and Initial and Continuous Compliance 
Requirements?
    We are proposing testing and initial and continuous compliance 
requirements that are, where appropriate, based on procedures and 
methods that we have previously developed and used for emission points 
similar to those for which we are proposing standards with this action. 
For example, we are proposing applicability determination procedures to 
determine whether a process vent stream is required to apply control, 
and performance tests and test methods to demonstrate that the emission 
limits are achieved when controls are applied. The proposed 
requirements are dependent on the control device selected.
    We are proposing control applicability determination procedures to 
measure process vent flow rate and process vent HAP concentration. The 
proposed test methods parallel what we have used for process vent 
organic HAP emission point sources in previous standards. For measuring 
vent stream flow rate, we propose the use of Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 
or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For measuring total vent stream 
HAP concentration to determine whether the vent stream HAP 
concentration is below a specified level, we propose the use of Method 
18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    Additionally, we are proposing to require initial performance tests 
for all control devices other than flares and certain boilers and 
process heaters used as control devices for HAP emissions from process 
vents. As with the HON, we are not proposing a requirement to perform 
an initial performance test for boilers and process heaters larger than 
44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) because they operate at high temperatures 
and residence times. Analysis shows that when vent streams are 
introduced into the flame zone of these boilers and process heaters, 
greater than 98 weight-percent of organic HAP emissions are reduced, or 
an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv organic HAP is achieved. For flares, 
a percent reduction and outlet concentration measurement is not 
feasible. Therefore, we determined that a performance test is not 
necessary if the control device is a boiler, a process heater larger 
than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr), or a flare. We proposed performance 
tests that ensure that a control device can achieve the required 
control level and help establish operating parameters that are 
indicative of proper operation and maintenance.
    We are proposing that continuous compliance with emission standards 
for process vents be demonstrated by monitoring control device 
operating parameters established during the performance tests or 
specified in the standards (as applicable). The proposed requirements 
for carbon black production list the parameters that can be monitored 
for the common types of combustion devices. For other control devices, 
we would require that an owner or operator establish site-specific 
parameter ranges for monitoring purposes through the Notification of 
Compliance Status report and operating permit. Parameters selected are 
required to be good indicators of continuous control device 
performance.
    In addition to testing and monitoring of emissions control 
equipment, we are also proposing that the closed vent system that 
routes emissions to control equipment be initially and annually tested 
for HAP emissions leaks (i.e., a measurement greater than 500 ppmv. If 
a leak is detected, we would require that you eliminate the leak and 
monitor equipment (no later than 15 calendar days after the leak is 
detected).
5. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?
    We are proposing notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements that parallel the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A), and requirements to document compliance that are similar to 
those previously developed and used for similar emission points.
    We are proposing that owners or operators of carbon black 
production affected sources submit the following four types of reports: 
(1) Initial Notification, (2) Notification of Compliance Status, (3) 
periodic reports, and (4) other reports. Records of reported 
information and other information necessary to document compliance with 
the proposed NESHAP

[[Page 76422]]

would be required to be kept for 5 years. Equipment design records 
would be required to be kept for the life of the equipment.
    For the Initial Notification, we are proposing that you list the 
carbon black production processes at your facility and the provisions 
that may apply. The Initial Notification would also be required to 
include a statement as to whether your facility can achieve compliance 
by the specified compliance date. This notification would be required 
to be submitted within 1 year after the date of promulgation for 
existing sources, and within 180 days before commencement of 
construction or reconstruction of an affected source.
    For the Notification of Compliance Status report, we are proposing 
that you submit the information necessary to demonstrate that 
compliance has been achieved, such as the results of performance tests 
and design analyses. We provide information on the requirements and 
information to be provided to us for performance tests and other 
methods of compliance determination for process vents and equipment. 
For each test method used for a particular kind of emission point 
(e.g., process vent), one complete test report would be required to be 
submitted. This notification would also be required to include the 
specific range for each monitored parameter for each emission point for 
determining continuous compliance, and the rationale for why this range 
indicates proper operation of the control device.
    For periodic reports, we are proposing that you report periods when 
the values of monitored parameters are outside the ranges established 
in the Notification of Compliance Status report. For process vents, 
records of continuously monitored parameters must be kept. For 
equipment leaks, inspections and/or leak detection monitoring records 
must be kept. These records would only be required to be submitted in 
the periodic report if a leak is detected. We are proposing that these 
reports be submitted semiannually, or quarterly if monitored parameter 
values for a particular emission point are outside the established 
range by a given percentage of the operating time.
    Other reports that we are proposing to require include reports to 
the regulatory authority before or after a specific event (e.g., if a 
process change is made, requests for extension of repair period).

C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Carbon Black 
Production

1. How Did EPA Select the Source Category?
    We listed Carbon Black Production as a category of major sources of 
HAP on June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197). We listed this category due to 
potential emissions of carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and hydrogen 
cyanide. When we originally listed the Carbon Black Production source 
category, we stated that it included facilities that manufacture carbon 
black using the channel, thermal, or furnace process (61 FR 28197). In 
gathering and evaluating more extensive information on the production 
of carbon black, we determined that the furnace black process is the 
dominant production process utilized in this source category. The other 
types of production processes we identified that are currently used in 
the United States to produce carbon black are the thermal, acetylene, 
and lampblack processes. Therefore, in our proposed definition of 
carbon black production, we specify the furnace black, thermal, 
acetylene, and lampblack processes.
    The CAA allows us to define subcategories, or subsets of similar 
emission sources within a source category, if technical differences in 
emissions characteristics, processes, control device applicability, or 
opportunities for pollution prevention exist within the source category 
(57 FR 31576). Specific examples of these differences include the types 
of products, process equipment differences, the type and level of 
emission control, emissions sources, and any other factors that would 
impact a MACT standard. We did not identify differences between the 
four carbon black production processes included in the source category 
that we believe meet the criteria presented above for 
subcategorization. They all have the same basic unit operations, HAP 
emission sources, and ability to control the HAP emissions. Thus, we 
determined that it was not necessary to divide this source category 
into subcategories.
2. How Did EPA Select the Affected Source?
    The affected source is the group of unit operations, equipment, and 
emission points that are subject to the proposed NESHAP. We can define 
the affected source as narrowly as a single item of equipment or as 
broadly as all equipment at the plant site that is used to manufacture 
the carbon black product. The affected source defines the collection of 
equipment that you would evaluate to determine whether replacement of 
components at an existing affected source would qualify as a 
reconstruction. If we define the affected source narrowly, it could 
affect whether some parts of a process unit would be subject to new 
source requirements or existing source requirements. We are proposing 
the same requirements for existing and new sources for carbon black 
production emission points. Therefore, the only implication for 
narrowly defining the carbon black production affected source would be 
when the source would have to comply with the standards.
    We selected the process unit that manufactures carbon black as the 
foundation for the affected source. We defined the carbon black 
production process unit as the collection of equipment, assembled and 
connected by hard-piping or duct work, that is used to process raw 
material to manufacture the carbon black product. We evaluated the 
potential HAP emission sources at carbon black production facilities 
and determined that most HAP emissions occur from a single point. This 
point is the process vent from the main unit filter, which includes the 
``tailgas'' from the reactor, along with miscellaneous streams from 
other unit operations.
    Based on the available information, we concluded that HAP emissions 
from storage vessels, equipment leaks, and wastewater were not 
significant. In fact, no HAP emissions or HAP emission controls were 
reported by industry for storage vessels and wastewater at any carbon 
black facility. Therefore, we have not included storage vessels and 
wastewater streams as part of the affected source.
    In summary, we are proposing that the affected source for carbon 
black production include each carbon production process unit located at 
a major source, including all process vents from the main unit filter, 
and equipment (i.e., connectors, pumps, valves) after the reactor that 
contains or contacts HAP that are associated with the carbon black 
production process unit.
3. How Did EPA Determine the Basis and Level of The Proposed NESHAP for 
Existing and New Sources?
    Eight companies operate 22 carbon black production facilities in 
the United States. For a source category with under 30 sources, section 
112(d)(3) of the CAA directs that the MACT floor for existing sources 
be based on the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing five sources. The MACT floor for new sources in a source

[[Page 76423]]

category is required to reflect the level of control being achieved by 
the best controlled similar source. The term ``average'' is not defined 
in the CAA. On June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29196), we announced our conclusion 
that Congress intended ``average,'' as used in section 112(d)(3), to be 
the mean, median, mode, or some other measure of central tendency. We 
also concluded that we retain substantial discretion within the 
statutory framework to set MACT floors at appropriate levels, and that 
we construe the word ``average'' (as used in section 112(d)(3)) to 
authorize us to use any reasonable method, in a particular factual 
context, of determining the central tendency of a data set.
    We chose the median as the measure of central tendency in our MACT 
floor analysis for process vents and equipment after the reactor for 
existing sources. We chose the median because the arithmetic mean 
resulted in a level of control that did not correspond to any actual 
control technology. Using a median allowed us to select a MACT floor 
level of control that corresponds to the level of control represented 
by an existing control device. Additionally, since our MACT floor 
analysis consisted of data from only 22 facilities, choosing the mode 
as the measure of central tendency did not make sense, since the mode 
is more appropriately used when there is a large data set.
    One decision that we must make is how to ``group'' emission sources 
in the MACT floor analysis. We often separate emission sources into 
groups by emission source type (e.g., tanks, process vents, fugitive 
emission sources). For the Carbon Black Production source category, we 
identified the process vent from the main unit filter as a group for 
purposes of determining MACT.
    For process vents from the main unit filter, we determined the MACT 
floor for existing sources to be a 98-weight-percent HAP emission 
reduction. This floor level of control represents the five best 
performing facilities that achieved the highest level of emissions 
reductions and had the lowest reported uncontrolled (inlet) total HAP 
concentrations (considering vent flow rate) for the main unit filter 
process vent. Since all combustion devices in our database achieve a 
98-weight-percent HAP emission reduction, we based the best controlled 
facilities on those facilities that control the lowest inlet 
concentration streams (considering vent flow rate). We believe, based 
on engineering judgement, that these low uncontrolled (inlet) total HAP 
concentrations represent the most difficult main unit filter process 
vent emission streams to control in the Carbon Black Production source 
category.
    For process vents from the main unit filter, we were unable to 
identify a method of control in practice that would achieve a greater 
level of HAP emissions control than the MACT floor levels for existing 
sources. Therefore, we determined that the MACT floor for new sources 
for process vents from the main unit filter is the same as the MACT 
floor for existing sources (i.e., a 98-weight-percent HAP emission 
reduction).
    For process vents from the main unit filter, we estimated and 
evaluated the impacts of above-the-floor options for existing and new 
sources. We did not identify a viable above-the-floor option for 
process vents from the main unit filter for existing or new sources. 
Therefore, we are proposing that MACT for process vents from the main 
unit filter for existing and new sources is the level of control 
represented by the MACT floor (i.e., a 98-percent HAP emission 
reduction).
    In our evaluation of control options for carbon black facilities 
for process vents after the main unit filter, we determined that the 
MACT floor for existing and new sources is no control. This floor level 
of control represents the five best performing facilities that achieved 
the highest level of emissions reductions and had the lowest reported 
uncontrolled (inlet) total HAP concentrations (considering vent flow 
rate) for process vents after the main unit filter. Four of the five 
facilities did not indicate any air emissions control after the main 
unit filter. One facility reported process modifications that reduce 
the residual HAP levels in the process after the main unit filter by 98 
weight-percent. Since this facility's level of control does not 
correspond to a control type, we determined that the MACT floor for 
both existing and new sources was no control.
    We estimated and evaluated the impacts of above-the-floor options 
for process vents after the main unit filter. We evaluated controlling 
process vents after the main unit filter to 98 weight-percent as an 
above-the-floor option. We determined that the cost effectiveness of 
this option is unreasonable. Therefore, we selected the MACT floor 
level of control for process vents located after the main unit filter 
process to be MACT (i.e., no control).
    In determining MACT for process vents, we considered whether it was 
appropriate to apply a 98 weight-percent emission reduction requirement 
to all process vents from main unit filters. We determined that for 
low-concentration streams (i.e., streams with concentrations less than 
around 1,000 ppmv), a 98 weight-percent reduction may not be achievable 
for all process vents from the main unit filter. Therefore, we are 
proposing an alternative to the 98 weight-percent reduction requirement 
for main unit filter process vents at existing and new affected 
sources. This alternative standard is a HAP or total organic compound 
(TOC) concentration limit of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if 
a combustion device is the control device and supplemental combustion 
air is used to combust the emissions), which we have determined is a 
reasonable level achievable for low-concentration streams.
    In determining MACT for process vents from the main unit filter, we 
also selected a control applicability cutoff for existing and new 
sources, below which the vent would not be subject to control 
requirements. We selected an applicability cutoff for existing and new 
sources that represents the lowest inlet concentration reported at one 
of the best controlled facilities. The proposed cutoff is 260 ppmv.
    The standards that we are proposing for process vents from the main 
unit filter in the carbon black production source category have various 
forms. These forms consist of a combination of emission standards and 
equipment, design, work practice, and operational requirements 
consistent with requirements promulgated for similar emission points 
and emission characteristics. For process vent streams controlled by 
control devices other than a flare, we selected the form of a numerical 
emission limitation (a weight-percent reduction and a concentration). 
This form was chosen based on the controls used at carbon black 
facilities and the data available for our MACT analysis.
    For vent streams controlled by a flare, we selected a form 
consisting of equipment and operating specifications, consistent with 
the form for flare requirements that we have specified for other 
industries. This is because it is very difficult to measure the 
emissions from a flare to determine its efficiency.
4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 
Reporting Requirements?
    We selected the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, UU, and YY to demonstrate 
and document compliance with the carbon black production standards. The 
procedures and methods set out in these subparts are, where 
appropriate, based

[[Page 76424]]

on procedures and methods that we previously developed for use in 
implementing standards for emission point sources similar to those 
being proposed for the Carbon Black Production source category.
    General compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements that would apply across source categories and affected 
emission points are contained within 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY (i.e., 
Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1113). We specify the applicability assessment 
procedures necessary to determine whether an emission point is required 
to apply controls. These procedures are dependent on the emission point 
for which control applicability needs to be assessed and the form of 
the applicability cutoff selected for an individual source category 
(e.g., a HAP concentration cutoff level, above which control is 
required).
    We selected monitoring (including continuous monitoring), 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements included under common control 
requirement subparts promulgated for equipment leaks (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart UU), and closed vent systems, control devices, recovery devices 
and routing to a fuel gas system or a process (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
SS). These subparts contain a common set of monitoring, recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements. We established these subparts to ensure 
consistency of the air emission requirements applied to similar 
emission points with pollutant streams containing gaseous organic HAP. 
The rationale for the establishment of these subparts and requirements 
contained within each subpart is presented in the proposal preamble for 
the source category requirements previously promulgated under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart YY (63 FR 55186-55191).
    The compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, UU, and YY, are 
appropriate for demonstrating and documenting compliance with the 
requirements proposed for the Carbon Black Production source category. 
This is because these requirements were established for standards with 
similar forms and similar emission points, and with pollutant streams 
of gaseous organic HAP for which we are requiring MACT compliance 
demonstration and documentation under this proposal.

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

1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
    For the Carbon Black Production source category, we estimate that 
the proposed NESHAP would reduce HAP emissions by 1830 Mg/yr (2,020 
TPY). This is a 26 percent reduction from the total baseline HAP 
emissions for this source category and a 95 percent reduction for those 
facilities that would be required to install controls to meet the 
standards.
    We estimate that the proposed NESHAP for the Carbon Black 
Production source category would reduce CO emissions by 474,000 Mg/yr 
(522,000 TPY), VOC by 16,900 Mg/yr (18,600 TPY), hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) by 10,300 Mg/yr (11,300 TPY), and PM by 740 Mg/yr (820 
TPY). We estimate that the proposed NESHAP would increase 
SOX emissions by 32,900 Mg/yr (36,200 TPY) and 
NOX by 1,140 Mg/yr (1,260 TPY) as a result of on-site 
combustion of fossil fuels. However, the air quality benefits of the 
proposed NESHAP (i.e., reductions in HAP, CO, VOC, and H2S 
emissions) outweigh the negative impacts associated with the 
anticipated increases in emissions of SOX and 
NOX.
2. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
    The total estimated capital cost of the proposed NESHAP for the 
Carbon Black Production source category is $54.9 million. The total 
estimated annual cost of the proposed NESHAP is $10.6 million. These 
costs represent fourth quarter 1998 dollars.
    We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the impacts 
these proposed NESHAP would have on the carbon black production market, 
consumers, and society. The total annualized social cost (in 1997 
dollars) of the proposed NESHAP to the industry is $10.6 million, which 
is less than 0.001 percent of total baseline revenue for the affected 
sources. A screening analysis suggests only one of the firms affected 
by the proposed NESHAP would experience costs in excess of 1 percent of 
sales, and no firm would experience costs in excess of 1.5 percent of 
sales. For this reason, we believe the impact of the proposed NESHAP 
will be minimal. We expect no facility closures as a result of the 
proposed NESHAP.
3. What Are the Nonair Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
    We believe that there would not be significant adverse nonair 
health, environmental or energy impacts associated with the proposed 
NESHAP for the Carbon Black Production source category. This is 
supported by impacts analyses associated with the application of the 
control and recovery devices required under the proposed NESHAP. We 
determine impacts relative to the baseline that is set at the level of 
control in absence of the proposed NESHAP.
    There are no water pollution and solid waste impacts from the use 
of air emission control devices in the Carbon Black Production source 
category. An increase in energy consumption will result from the use of 
combustion control systems. We estimate that the Carbon Black 
Production source category will consume an additional 186 million cubic 
feet of natural gas per year to meet the regulatory requirements of the 
proposed NESHAP. This would represent an increase in total domestic 
natural gas consumption of less than 1/100th of one percent.

E. Solicitation of Comments

    Representatives of the carbon black industry have expressed concern 
with requirements in the proposed NESHAP to monitor for leaks from air 
stream conveyance systems. Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, we are 
requiring facility owners/operators to monitor for HAP leaks from 
connectors and other equipment involved in the conveyance of HAP 
containing air emission streams required to be controlled by the 
proposed NESHAP.
    Industry concern so far has centered around two issues: (1) That 
the large amount of nitrogen in carbon black facility air streams may 
provide false positive readings; and (2) that EPA Method 21 (the 
required test method) may not detect the nonorganic HAP present in the 
gas stream for a carbon black facility and, therefore, may not be an 
effective monitoring procedure. We are soliciting further industry 
comments and data on these two issues in order to more effectively 
address them in the final NESHAP.
    Many carbon black production facilities use flares to control HAP 
emissions. The flares used by the industry are commonly called hydrogen 
flares due to the presence of large amounts of hydrogen in emission 
streams being controlled. On May 4, 1998, we published a direct final 
rule (63 FR 24436) to add operating requirements designed to ensure 
that a 98 weight-percent destruction of organic HAP and VOC is achieved 
by hydrogen flares. We are aware that some members of the carbon black 
industry use flare designs that differ from the flare type used to 
establish our current requirements for hydrogen flares. While some 
industry flares may not meet our current operating procedures, they

[[Page 76425]]

might meet the required 98 weight-percent level required by the 
proposed NESHAP.
    We are soliciting test data collected by industry that would show 
that flare types used by the carbon black industry achieve 98 weight-
percent control. If we determine the data submitted to be adequate, a 
revision to the hydrogen flare requirements could be promulgated. This 
revision potentially would allow the use of certain flares meeting the 
required destruction efficiency, yet operating outside of the 
parameters we established in the May 4, 1998, Federal Register notice 
to be used to meet the requirements of the proposed NESHAP.

IV. Ethylene Production

A. Introduction

1. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the 
Emissions?
    The following emission types (i.e., emission points) are the 
primary sources of emissions being covered by the proposed NESHAP: 
Equipment (including pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, 
valves, and connectors); storage vessels; transfer racks; process 
vents; heat exchange systems; and waste operations. We address 
pyrolysis furnaces and decoking operations, but there are no specific 
control requirements for these two emission types.
    A variety of HAP are emitted during the ethylene manufacturing 
process. The HAP emitted by the facilities covered by the proposed 
NESHAP include benzene, 1,3 butadiene, toluene, naphthalene, hexane, 
and xylene. The proposed standards regulate emissions of these 
compounds, as well as other incidental organic HAP that are emitted 
during the manufacture of ethylene.
2. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the HAP Emitted?
    The data available to us indicate that the primary HAP emitted by 
ethylene manufacturing are benzene and 1,3 butadiene. Emissions of 
benzene and 1,3 butadiene are more than 80 percent of the total HAP 
emissions from the manufacture of ethylene/propylene. The HAP that 
would be controlled with today's proposed NESHAP are associated with a 
variety of adverse health effects.
    Benzene. Acute (short-term) exposure to benzene in air can cause 
dizziness, headaches, and unconsciousness. Exposure to high levels of 
benzene can result in death. Lower concentrations may irritate the 
skin, eyes, and lungs. Chronic (long-term) exposure to benzene in 
occupational settings has caused various disorders in the blood, 
including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia. 
Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white 
blood cells) has been observed in workers exposed to benzene. The EPA 
has classified benzene as a Group A, known human carcinogen.
    1,3 butadiene. Acute inhalation of 1,3 butadiene results in 
irritation of the eyes, nasal passages, throat, and lungs, and causes 
neurological effects such as blurred vision, fatigue, headache, and 
vertigo. Epidemiological studies have reported a possible association 
between chronic 1,3 butadiene exposure and cardiovascular diseases. 
Animal studies have reported the development of tumors following 
inhalation exposure to 1,3 butadiene. The EPA has classified 1,3 
butadiene as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen.
    The effects of these HAP 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. To the extent the 
adverse effects do occur, the proposed NESHAP will substantially reduce 
emissions and exposures to the level achievable with MACT. The 
seriousness of risks remaining after impositions of the final MACT 
standards will be examined at a later date, as provided for under 
section 112(f) of the CAA.

B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Ethylene Production

1. What Is the Source Category To Be Regulated?
    There are 37 ethylene production plants operating in the United 
States. We estimate that 30 or more facilities are major sources. The 
proposed NESHAP apply to all major sources that produce ethylene. Final 
determination of major source status occurs as part of the compliance 
determination process undertaken by each individual source. Area 
sources are not subject to the proposed NESHAP.
    The Ethylene Production source category includes any facility which 
manufactures ethylene as a primary product or an intermediate product. 
Ethylene is produced by either a pyrolysis process (hydrocarbons 
subjected to high temperatures in the presence of steam) or by 
separation from a petroleum refining stream. The ethylene production 
process includes the separation of ethylene from associated streams 
such as product made from compounds composed of four carbon atoms (C4), 
pyrolysis gasoline, and pyrolysis fuel oil. The ethylene production 
process does not include the manufacture of synthetic organic 
chemicals, such as the production of butadiene from the C4 stream and 
aromatics from pyrolysis gasoline. Propylene is often produced as a 
product during the ethylene production process, but the separation of 
propylene from a refinery gas stream does not in itself cause the 
process unit or the equipment used for the separation to be included in 
this source category.
    In addition to ethylene and propylene, other products from an 
ethylene manufacturing process unit (EMPU) may include, but are not 
limited to: (1) Hydrogen and methane containing streams, (2) ethane and 
propane streams, (3) mixed C4+ pyrolysis products, (4) pyrolysis fuel 
oil, and (5) specialty products such as acetylene and methylacetylene-
propadiene. For purposes of discussion in this preamble, the term 
ethylene will be used to describe the source category and the 
associated process unit equipment even though other products, such as 
propylene, may be produced in addition to and in greater or lesser 
quantities than ethylene.
2. What Is the Affected Source?
    We have defined the affected source to include each EMPU, along 
with associated process equipment (including storage vessels, process 
vents, transfer racks, waste streams, piping, and heat exchange 
systems) located at a plant site that is a major source as defined in 
section 112(a) of the CAA. The affected source does not include 
associated equipment that does not contain HAP, stormwater from 
segregated sewers, water from firefighting and deluge systems in 
segregated sewers, water from testing deluge systems, water from safety 
showers, spills, storage vessels and transfer racks that contain 
organic HAP as impurities, or vapor balancing transfer equipment. We 
define EMPU as a process unit specifically utilized for the production 
of ethylene/propylene including all separation and purification 
processes. The affected source does not include pieces of equipment 
currently included in other source categories.
3. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards?
    The following discussion briefly summarizes the proposed control 
requirements for the affected emission types.

[[Page 76426]]

    a. Equipment leaks. The equipment leak emission type represents 
emissions from specific components within the ethylene manufacturing 
process. These components include pumps, compressors, pressure relief 
devices, gas valves, light liquid valves, heavy liquid valves, and 
connectors. For equipment containing or contacting HAP in amounts of 5 
percent or greater, HAP emissions are required to be controlled through 
the implementation of LDAR program for affected equipment. Monitoring 
frequency is based on the percent of leaking equipment. Requirements 
are the same for both existing and new sources.
    b. Process vents. For process vents from continuous unit operations 
having an average flow rate greater than or equal to 0.008 standard 
cubic meters per minute (scmm) and an average HAP concentration of 30 
ppmv or greater, HAP emissions are required to be controlled by routing 
emissions through a closed vent system to one of the following: (1) A 
flare, or (2) an enclosed combustion device that reduces HAP emissions 
by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 
percent oxygen if a combustion device is the control device and 
supplemental combustion air is used to combust the emissions). Recovery 
devices can be used in certain situations to meet the 98 weight-percent 
reduction or 20 ppmv requirement. Requirements are the same for both 
existing and new sources.
    c. Storage Vessels. For storage vessels storing liquid containing 
HAP and having a vapor pressure greater than or equal to 3.4 
kilopascals (0.5 pounds per square inch absolute (psia)) but less than 
76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia), requirements are based on capacity. For 
storage vessels with capacity greater than 4 cubic meters (1,000 
gallons) but less than 95 cubic meters (25,000 gallons), HAP emissions 
are required to be controlled by filling the vessel through a submerged 
pipe or by complying with the requirements for storage vessels with 
capacities greater than or equal to 95 cubic meters (25,000 gallons). 
For storage vessels with capacity of 95 cubic meters (25,000 gallons) 
or more, HAP emissions are required to be controlled by equipping the 
vessel with an internal floating roof or external floating roof with 
seals and controlled fittings or by routing emissions through a closed 
vent system to a flare, a fuel gas system or process, or a control 
device that reduces HAP emissions by 95 weight-percent. Vessels storing 
materials with vapor pressures of 11 psia or greater must be equipped 
with a closed vent system routed to a flare or control device that 
reduces HAP emissions by 95 weight-percent. Requirements are the same 
for both existing and new sources.
    d. Transfer Racks. For transfer racks loading 76 cubic meters 
(20,000 gallons) or more per day of HAP-containing material (averaged 
over any consecutive 30-day period) and having a vapor pressure greater 
than or equal to 3.4 kilopascals (0.5 psia), HAP emissions are required 
to be controlled by equipping the transfer rack with one of the 
following: (1) A closed vent system designed to collect the regulated 
material displaced during loading and route it to a flare or other 
control device that reduces HAP emissions by 98 weight-percent or to a 
concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion 
device is the control device and supplemental combustion air is used to 
combust the emissions), or (2) process piping designed to collect the 
regulated material displaced during loading and route it to a process, 
a fuel gas system, or a vapor balance system. Requirements are the same 
for both existing and new sources.
    e. Heat Exchange Systems. The HAP emissions from heat exchange 
systems occur when a leak in a heat exchanger allows HAP to be 
introduced to the cooling water and released when the cooling water is 
exposed to the atmosphere. The HAP emissions are required to be 
controlled by implementing procedures to monitor cooling water and 
repair equipment upon detection of a leak. Cooling water is monitored 
monthly for heat exchange systems at existing sources and weekly for 
heat exchange systems at new sources.
    f. Waste Operations. To control emissions from waste streams, HAP 
in the stream must be reduced by 99 weight-percent or to 10 ppmv. The 
HAP reduction of 99 weight-percent must be achieved using suppression 
followed by steam stripping, biotreatment, or other treatment 
processes. Vents from steam strippers and other waste management or 
treatment units are required to be controlled by a control device 
achieving 98 weight-percent emission reduction or 20 ppmv (corrected to 
3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the control device and 
supplemental combustion air is used to combust the emissions) at the 
outlet of the control device. The term ``waste'' includes wastewater 
streams. This term is used because the proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
XX, references the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP (BWON) for 
controlling emissions from wastes (including wastewater). Requirements 
are the same for both existing and new sources.
    As discussed later in this preamble, the requirements for waste 
operations are based on the BWON. The BWON includes three compliance 
options in addition to the standard requirements. These compliance 
options are not included in the requirements for ethylene production 
sources. The BWON compliance options set limits based on a total annual 
benzene (TAB) quantity. Because the requirements for ethylene 
production sources are for controlling HAP emissions, requirements 
including a TAB quantity would not be appropriate. We do not have 
adequate data to convert the TAB limits into HAP emission limits. 
Additionally, calculation of such a quantity is a complicated and time-
consuming process. In complying with the BWON, a TAB quantity is 
calculated regardless of the compliance option selected because a TAB 
quantity is used to determine overall applicability of the BWON. No 
such quantity is needed for the ethylene production waste requirements 
because they apply to all ethylene production sources located at major 
sources. Excluding the compliance options simplifies the requirements 
for ethylene production sources by not requiring a TAB or a HAP-based 
quantity to be calculated.
4. What Are the Testing, Monitoring, Inspection, Recordkeeping and 
Reporting Requirements?
    The testing, monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements specified in the proposed NESHAP are used to assure and 
document compliance with the standards. The testing, monitoring, 
inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements included in the 
proposed NESHAP are based on such requirements that we previously 
developed for sources similar to those for which standards are being 
proposed today. The testing, monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements for each emission type are based on those in the 
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP, the BWON, the HON, and/or other rules as 
appropriate. These testing, monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements are the same as the generic standards for 
storage vessels (40 CFR part 63, subpart WW); equipment leaks (40 CFR 
part 63, subparts TT and UU); and process vents (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS).
    As discussed later in this preamble, the proposed 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart XX, specifies that monitoring of HAP concentration in waste 
streams after treatment or process parameters that indicate proper 
operation of treatment

[[Page 76427]]

systems must be conducted continuously. Facilities that currently 
perform concentration monitoring of waste streams do so on a monthly 
basis as required by the BWON. We do not believe that monthly 
concentration monitoring is sufficient to ensure continuous compliance. 
Rules developed under section 112 of the CAA include monitoring 
strategies that incorporate the concepts of enhanced monitoring that 
were established in section 114(a)(3) of the CAA. This approach is 
designed to ensure that monitoring procedures developed for section 112 
standards provide data that can be used to determine compliance with 
applicable standards, including emission standards on a continual 
basis. Since the waste requirements of the proposed 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart XX, primarily refer to provisions in 40 CFR part 61, subpart 
FF, that were developed prior to the CAA Amendments, the provisions do 
not ensure that monitoring data are available to prove compliance on a 
continual basis in all cases. Therefore, today's proposal requires 
either continuous monitoring of HAP concentration of the waste stream 
exiting the treatment process or continuous monitoring of process 
parameters for the waste treatment process/unit that would indicate 
proper system operation. Facilities that comply with the monitoring 
requirements of the proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart XX, are not 
required to comply with the monitoring requirements of the BWON.
5. What Are the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements?
    The startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements included in the 
proposed NESHAP are, where appropriate, based on startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction requirements developed for the part 63 General Provisions 
and previously incorporated in 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. Subpart YY 
requires that minimization of emissions from startup, shutdown, and 
malfunctions be addressed in a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 
The plan must also establish reporting and recordkeeping of such 
events. The existing startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements 
have been reviewed and were determined to be appropriate for ethylene 
production sources.
    Also, during development of the proposed NESHAP, we determined that 
decoking is a shutdown activity and will be addressed through a 
facility's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The decoking 
process is similar to other shutdown activities as defined in subpart 
YY. Including decoking in a facility's startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan will require owners and operators of an EMPU to 
include procedures for decoking that will minimize emissions. By 
including decoking as a shutdown activity, owners and operators will be 
afforded flexibility in addressing decoking emissions while ensuring 
that they will be minimized.
6. How Are the Proposed NESHAP Related to Other Rules?
    We recognize that the potential exists for regulatory overlap 
between the proposed NESHAP and other rules previously developed under 
the CAA. Therefore, we have clarified the applicability of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart YY, as it relates to other 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 
rules that apply to ethylene production sources in the general 
applicability section of the proposed NESHAP (Sec. 63.1100). Areas of 
overlap may occur with other NESHAP applicable to storage vessels, 
process vents, transfer operations, and equipment leaks, such as 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts Ka, Kb, VV, NNN, and RRR; 40 CFR part 61, subpart V; 
and 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
    The requirements for equipment leaks, storage vessels, process 
vents, and transfer racks are similar to the requirements for these 
emission types under both the HON and the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP. 
Thus, we expect that most ethylene manufacturing facilities are 
currently implementing many of the proposed requirements for a process 
unit at the plant site, which will lessen the burden to owners and 
operators. In addition, the proposed monitoring, recordkeeping, 
reporting, and testing requirements are also similar to those required 
by the HON and the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP.
    Further, the proposed NESHAP reference several other subparts which 
have established requirements for equipment leaks, storage vessels, 
process vents, and waste operations. We made the decision to reference 
other subparts in order to expedite the rulemaking process and to 
encourage standardization of requirements for facilities subject to 
numerous NESHAP. It is not our intent to broadly apply standards that 
have been promulgated previously by the Agency without thorough 
consideration of the appropriateness of such an approach. We determined 
the appropriate standards for each emission type at ethylene 
manufacturing facilities prior to making the decision to reference 
other subparts for emission control standards.

C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Ethylene 
Production

1. How Did EPA Select the Source Category?
    In the early listing of source categories, we intended to regulate 
ethylene processes with the SOCMI. We did not do this because we had 
insufficient data to support that ethylene processes and SOCMI 
processes were similar sources for MACT determination. The ethylene 
processes were, therefore, specifically not covered by NESHAP for the 
SOCMI source category (HON). Consequently, we listed ethylene processes 
as a separate category of major sources of HAP on June 4, 1996 (61 FR 
28197).
2. How Did EPA Select the Affected Source?
    We determined the affected source by first recognizing that 
ethylene manufacturing processes generally exist as a follow-on 
chemical process to petroleum refining and as a precursor to the 
production of other chemicals, most of them SOCMI chemicals. Concerned 
about overlap, we considered the combination of equipment used in the 
manufacture of ethylene, and the associated by-products and co-
products, as the subject of this proposal, from the point at which feed 
stocks from refinery processes are received by an EMPU to the point 
where chemical product streams are either received by a unit covered by 
another MACT standard, like the HON, or leave the manufacturing site as 
product or waste. Not all streams in the affected source contain HAP, 
and the primary products of the EMPU are typically ethylene and 
propylene, neither of which are HAP. Hence, not all streams required 
control, only those containing HAP. To simplify the process of 
determining where to apply controls, the following emission types 
(i.e., emission points) were identified as the sources of emissions 
within the EMPU: Equipment (including pumps, compressors, pressure 
relief devices, valves, and connectors); storage vessels; transfer 
racks; process vents; heat exchange systems; and waste operations. We 
also identified pyrolysis furnaces and decoking operations, but there 
are no specific control requirements for these two emission types.
3. How Did EPA Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed NESHAP for 
Existing and New Sources?
    We are aware of 36 existing facilities in this source category, 31 
of which are located in just two States, Texas and Louisiana. Although 
we surveyed only

[[Page 76428]]

11 of the facilities in Texas and Louisiana, the MACT levels of control 
were relatively predictable and largely driven by existing State 
programs.
    For this source category, the selection of the best performing 
facilities upon which to determine the MACT floor used a point value 
approach, whereby the floor decisions were driven by the facilities 
that have the best LDAR program for equipment leaks. The information we 
collected indicates that equipment leaks are the largest source of HAP 
emissions at ethylene affected sources.
    To determine the existing MACT floor using the point value 
approach, it was necessary to determine the emission limitations 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of sources (i.e., five 
facilities) in the ethylene manufacturing industry. The five best 
performing facilities were determined on a facilitywide basis. For each 
emission type (equipment leaks, storage vessels, waste operations, heat 
exchange systems, process vents, and transfer racks), information on 
the control devices and emission reduction techniques in place at each 
facility was used to identify the most controlled sources. A ``point 
system'' was used to rank the facilities in order of most to least 
controlled. Facilities received points for each emission type for which 
they were among the best controlled. The points received for an 
emission type were weighted based on the relative contribution to total 
emissions to reflect the impact that control of the emission type has 
on the total emissions from a facility. All points for a facility were 
totaled. The facilities with the five highest point totals are 
considered to be the best performing overall sources.
    After we identified the top five performing sources, we used the 
information on the emission reduction techniques and control devices in 
place at those facilities to determine the ``average'' emission 
limitation achieved for each emission type. For each emission type, the 
five best performing facilities were ranked, in order of emission 
limitation achieved. The MACT floor for existing sources is the 
emission limitation achieved by the median facility. For EMPU emission 
types, determining the median reduction achieved, rather than the 
arithmetic mean, was found to be the most appropriate approach, since 
the median is associated with specific control technologies. The MACT 
floor for new sources is the emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing facility.
    Although the five best performing facilities were determined on a 
facilitywide basis, it is important to note that this analysis does not 
result in a facilitywide level of emission reduction that is being 
achieved by the best performing sources. Adequate information, 
specifically data on emissions before control techniques are applied, 
is not available to estimate facilitywide emissions reductions. It is 
unlikely that an accurate measure of the emission limitations achieved 
could be made. It is even less likely that such a limit could be used 
as the basis for a rule. Typically, MACT rules refer to a control 
device or practice as the basis of the standards because the MACT floor 
and MACT must be technically achievable. This would not be possible if 
an estimated facilitywide emission reduction was used as the basis for 
the standards. Additional information on selection of the five best 
performing facilities and documentation on the MACT floor methodology 
and determination of MACT is included in Docket No. A-98-22.
    As a check against whether we had properly identified the 
appropriate MACT floor level of control for the other HAP emission 
source types (i.e., storage vessels, process vents, wastewaters, 
cooling water, and furnaces), we then independently evaluated the best 
level of performance for each emission type. In other words, we 
performed a cursory analysis using the ``plank-type'' approach in 
determining the floor for these other emission types, as described in 
the preamble of the HON (59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994). We did not need 
to reevaluate equipment leak best performers since our point value 
approach already emphasized best performing LDAR programs.
    To further verify that we had made the right floor selections, we 
visited the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission to review 
the permits for the facilities in Texas and were able to confirm that 
the Texas facilities among the 11 surveyed are the best performing 
facilities in Texas. We also found that the levels of controls for all 
of these emission source types were a function of compliance with 
either Texas or Louisiana permit conditions, NSPS for Air Oxidation 
and/or SOCMI Distillation (40 CFR part 60, subparts III and NNN), or 
the Benzene Waste NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF). Since the best 
performing sources within each emission source type that we identified 
through the point value approach were the sources complying with the 
most stringent applicable State or Federal requirements, we concluded 
that we would arrive at the same MACT floor level of control for each 
emission source type through either the point value approach or through 
the ``plank-type'' approach. A detailed discussion of the determination 
of the MACT floor and MACT for each emission type follows.
    a. Process Vents. To establish the MACT floor for process vents, we 
determined both the level of control required and the vents to which 
control must be applied. All vents at the best performing facilities 
are being controlled using a flare or other combustion device. It is 
generally accepted that combustion devices achieve a 98 weight-percent 
reduction in HAP emissions; therefore, this is the MACT floor level of 
control for both new and existing sources.
    Only two of the best performing facilities reported having any 
process vents, and the volumetric flow rates and HAP concentrations of 
the vents are not known. The information available was supplemented 
with information from the regulations and the permit condition with 
which the two facilities are complying in order to determine the 
applicability criteria for control. These requirements include: Texas 
regulation 30 Texas Air Control (TAC) Chapter 115 Subchapter B; 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts NNN and RRR. These regulations and the applicable 
permit condition all require the same level of control: Reduction of 
organic compounds by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 
ppmv. The only differences in the applicable requirements are the 
cutoffs for determining whether control is required.
    Both facilities that reported having vents are subject to the Texas 
regulation, whereas only one facility is subject to the requirements of 
40 CFR part 60, subparts NNN and RRR. Therefore, the requirements of 
the Texas regulation are considered to represent the median level of 
control. The Texas regulation provides both a VOC concentration and 
flow rate cutoff for vents that must be controlled. The regulation 
requires that vents with a flow rate greater than or equal to 0.011 
scmm and a VOC concentration greater than or equal to 500 ppmv must be 
controlled. Based on vent composition data provided by the surveyed 
facilities, approximately 10 percent of the VOC in process vent streams 
are HAP. Thus, we determined that the MACT floor for existing sources 
is to control process vents with a flow rate greater than or equal to 
0.011 scmm and a HAP concentration greater than or equal to 50 ppmv by 
reducing HAP emissions by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 
ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the 
control device and supplemental

[[Page 76429]]

combustion air is used to combust the emissions).
    For new sources, the most stringent applicable regulation is the 
basis for the control applicability cutoffs. Subpart NNN requires vents 
with a flow rate greater than or equal to 0.008 scmm to be controlled. 
Subpart NNN of 40 CFR part 63 does not specify a concentration cutoff, 
but analysis of vents that are required to be controlled based on the 
total resource effectiveness index indicated that vents with TOC 
concentrations less than 300 ppmv are not likely to be required to be 
controlled (see the memorandum ``Process Vent Applicability Criteria'' 
in the Consolidated Federal Air Rule Docket A-96-01 for a discussion of 
this analysis). Because it is assumed that TOC content is approximately 
equal to VOC content for ethylene vents and that 10 percent of the VOC 
in these process vent streams are HAP, the MACT floor for new sources 
is to control process vents with a HAP concentration greater than or 
equal to 30 ppmv and a flow rate greater than or equal to 0.008 scmm by 
reducing HAP emissions by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 
ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the 
control device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust the 
emissions).
    More stringent applicability cutoffs for control of process vents 
were considered in identifying above-the-floor options for both new and 
existing sources. One option more stringent than the MACT floor for new 
sources is to lower the flow rate control applicability criteria to 
0.005 scmm as used in the HON. This cutoff is not significantly 
different than the new source MACT floor cutoff. Considering that there 
are so few process vents at ethylene manufacturing facilities, it is 
unlikely that many additional vents would be controlled or that 
additional emissions reductions would be achieved by lowering the 
cutoff. Therefore, the applicability criteria for the new source MACT 
level of control are the same as the new source MACT floor level of 
control.
    For existing sources, the control applicability criteria for the 
new source MACT were considered as an above-the-floor option. Because 
there are relatively few process vents at ethylene manufacturing 
facilities and the difference between the existing source MACT floor 
and new source MACT is so small, it is unlikely that many additional 
vents, if any, would be required to be controlled if the new source 
applicability criteria are used. Therefore, it is expected that there 
will be minimal to no difference in the cost of controls. We believe 
that the benefit of simplifying the proposed NESHAP by having the same 
control applicability cutoffs for process vents at new and existing 
sources greatly simplifies the requirements for vents and outweighs any 
additional cost. Thus, we determined that the process vent component of 
MACT is the same for existing sources as it is for new sources.
    We do not have adequate data to prove this assumption and are 
soliciting comments and data to: (1) Support or refute the assumption 
that there are few vents with flow rates between 0.008 and 0.011 scmm 
and HAP concentrations between 30 and 50 ppmv, (2) aid in estimating 
the cost of controlling these vents if they do exist, and (3) support 
or refute that there is a benefit associated with simplifying the 
proposed NESHAP.
    b. Storage Vessels. For storage vessel emissions, the five best 
performing facilities were ranked in order of the emissions reductions 
achieved through control equipment to determine the median facility. In 
establishing the storage vessel component of the MACT floor, we also 
determined the vessels to which controls would be applied.
    It was not possible to construct the entire storage vessel 
component of the MACT floor based on the vessels at the median facility 
because it does not represent the full range of vapor pressures of 
stored materials or sizes of storage vessels. Additional information 
was obtained from applicable regulations and permit conditions. We 
determined that control requirements apply to storage vessels 
containing liquids with vapor pressures greater than or equal to 3.4 
kilopascals (0.5 psia) and less than 76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The 
level of control is based on storage vessel size. For storage vessels 
with capacities greater than 4 cubic meters (1,000 gallons) and less 
than 95 cubic meters (25,000 gallons), a submerged pipe must be used 
for filling the vessel unless more stringent controls are in place. For 
storage vessels with capacities greater than or equal to 95 cubic 
meters (25,000 gallons), the following equipment comprises the MACT 
floor at existing sources:
     An internal floating roof (IFR), an external floating roof 
(EFR), or fixed roof with a closed vent system routed to a process, 
fuel gas system, or control device.
     If the vessel has an IFR, a mechanical shoe or liquid-
mounted primary seal, or a vapor-mounted primary seal with a rim-
mounted secondary seal.
     If the vessel has an EFR, a mechanical shoe or liquid-
mounted primary and rim-mounted secondary seal.
     If the vessel has a vapor recovery system routed to a 
control device, the device must control HAP emissions by 95 weight-
percent.
     Covers and gaskets on all access hatches, which are to be 
bolted.
    The overall storage control efficiency for the two sources that 
perform better than the median facility was considered in determining 
the new source storage vessel component of the MACT floor. Storage 
vessels at the best performing facilities have the same control as the 
median facility except that all fittings on most of the storage vessels 
are controlled.
    Requirements can be made more stringent than the existing source 
storage vessel component of the MACT floor by requiring controls that 
achieve a higher control efficiency. We determined that for vessels 
with capacities greater than or equal to 95 cubic meters (25,000 
gallons), the MACT level of control for existing sources is the MACT 
floor level of control with the addition of control for all fittings. 
This determination is based on a reasonable incremental cost 
effectiveness for the addition of controlled fittings. We determined 
that it is more cost effective to implement control of all fittings 
than it is to implement the storage vessel component of the MACT floor 
requirements alone. No options more stringent than the MACT floor for 
new sources were identified. Therefore, the MACT level of control for 
new sources is the same as the MACT level of control for existing 
sources.
    c. Transfer Racks. Only one of the best performing facilities has 
transfer racks, and emissions are not controlled. Due to the limited 
amount of information available, it is not possible to address how 
transfer of different materials or at different rates would be 
controlled by the best performing facilities using only survey 
responses. For this reason, we supplemented the survey response data 
with information from an applicable State regulation. The control 
requirements of Texas regulation 30 TAC Chapter 115 Subchapter C, 
Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations, Loading and Unloading of 
Volatile Organic Compounds, would apply to four of the five best 
performing facilities if they transfer materials having vapor pressures 
and at rates that meet or exceed the control applicability cutoffs of 
the proposed NESHAP.
    Subchapter C requires control of loading greater than or equal to 
20,000 gallons per day of VOC with a true vapor pressure greater than 
or equal to

[[Page 76430]]

0.5 psia. Loading racks meeting the control requirement applicability 
threshold are to be controlled with a vapor recovery system that 
achieves a 90 percent recovery or a vapor balancing system that 
maintains a pressure equal to or greater than 1.5 psia. It is assumed 
that the efficiency achieved for VOC emission control is the same as 
the efficiency achieved for HAP control in the case of ethylene 
manufacturing transfer racks. Subchapter C also includes requirements 
for transport vessels, lines, and connection systems. Because four of 
the five facilities are subject to the requirements of subchapter C and 
none of them are subject to or are controlling to levels more stringent 
than subchapter C, we determined that the transfer rack component of 
the MACT floor for new and existing sources is the set of requirements 
included in subchapter C.
    One above-the-floor option for existing sources is requiring a 
greater reduction in emissions. The HON and 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB 
(Benzene Transfer Operations NESHAP), require 98 weight-percent control 
of HAP emissions from transfer racks. We determined it is appropriate 
to require more stringent control, specifically 98 weight-percent 
control of HAP emissions or to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 
3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the control device and 
supplemental combustion air is used to combust the emissions). Because 
an EMPU is either equipped with a flare or has access to a common 
flare, if a facility decides to equip transfer racks with a closed vent 
system and a control or recovery device, the most cost-effective option 
would be to route emissions to an existing flare. This is supported by 
the fact that all transfer racks at ethylene manufacturing facilities 
that we estimate are controlled use a flare as a control device. 
Routing emissions to the flare would not cost more than routing 
emissions to another control device and would cost less than 
constructing a new control or recovery device. It is generally accepted 
that flares achieve a 98 weight-percent reduction in HAP emissions. 
Since emissions can be reduced by 98 weight-percent at the same cost as 
reducing them by 90 weight-percent, we have determined that the 
appropriate MACT level of control for existing sources is 98 weight-
percent reduction in HAP emissions (if a closed vent system and control 
device are used) or to a concentration of 20 ppmv (corrected to 3 
percent oxygen if a combustion device is the control device and 
supplemental combustion air is used to combust the emissions). The same 
logic applies to new sources. The least expensive control option for a 
new source would be to route transfer emissions to an existing flare or 
new flare that must be constructed anyway. Therefore, the MACT level of 
control for new sources is the same as the level of control for 
existing sources.
    d. Waste. According to the survey responses, all of the best 
performing facilities are controlling to comply with the requirements 
of the BWON. Therefore, the MACT floor for both new and existing 
sources is based on the control level achieved at the best performing 
facilities. Although the purpose of the BWON is to control benzene 
emissions, the control technologies in use to comply with the BWON also 
result in the control of other HAP. Based on data received in the 
survey responses, waste streams from each EMPU that contain benzene 
also contain other HAP, primarily 1,3-butadiene, cumene, ethyl benzene, 
hexane, naphthalene, styrene, toluene, and xylene. These HAP are 
similar to benzene in solubility and volatility. Therefore, we expect 
that these HAP are controlled to a similar level as benzene by 
management and treatment of the waste streams.
    The treatment requirements of the BWON require removal of benzene 
from the waste stream to 10 ppmw or by 99 weight-percent. For each 
closed vent system and control device used to comply with the 
requirements of the BWON, a benzene reduction of 98 weight-percent must 
be achieved. Because facilities controlling waste under the BWON are 
also achieving equal control of other HAP with physical properties 
similar to benzene, the control requirements of the MACT floor are the 
control requirements of the BWON for benzene as applied to total HAP. 
Thus, the waste component of the MACT floor requires removal of total 
HAP from the waste stream to 10 ppmw or by 99 weight-percent, and for 
each closed vent system and control device used to comply with the 
requirements of the proposed NESHAP, a total HAP reduction of 98 
weight-percent must be achieved.
    Today's proposed standards include control applicability cutoffs 
which are also based on the BWON. We considered whether the best 
performing facilities control all waste streams, and whether we could 
determine a HAP concentration cutoff and flow rate cutoff as part of 
the MACT floor. Generally, the BWON does not require management or 
treatment of waste streams containing less than 10 ppmw benzene or 
having a flow rate less than 0.02 liters per minute. We considered 
using the same cutoffs for the proposed NESHAP. However, facilities 
controlling waste for benzene are also achieving concurrent control of 
other HAP with physical properties similar to benzene. In addition, 
expressing the cutoff concentration in today's proposal as a benzene 
concentration could result in a cutoff that might exclude from control 
some waste streams that are similar in terms of HAP concentration as 
those being controlled at the floor. Since 10 ppmw benzene is 
approximately the same as 10 ppmw HAP for most of the waste streams, we 
are expressing the cutoff for the MACT floor as not requiring control 
of streams containing less than 10 ppmw total HAP or with a flow rate 
less than 0.02 liters per minute.
    Finally, the BWON applies to facilities with a TAB quantity of 10 
Mg/yr or greater. If a facility's waste streams have less than 10 Mg/yr 
benzene, the facility does not have to manage or treat waste to comply 
with the BWON. This cannot apply to MACT because MACT is a technology-
based standard, and the MACT floor is based on the control technology 
performance for control of HAP at the best performing facilities. All 
of the best performing facilities are controlling HAP from waste 
streams. Therefore, the MACT floor level of control applies at each 
EMPU, regardless of the TAB. We have identified no rationale to support 
the subcategorization of waste operations based on the TAB.
    One above-the-floor option is to have no control applicability 
cutoffs. We have determined that the emissions reductions that would be 
achieved by the management and treatment of all waste streams would 
result in considerably higher costs that cannot be justified.
    Additional above-the-floor control options include more stringent 
management and treatment requirements. However, the management 
requirements of the BWON are already comprehensive and include all 
equipment used to transport waste. Similarly, the treatment 
requirements are quite stringent: removal of total HAP from the waste 
stream to 10 ppmw or by 99 weight-percent. We have not identified more 
stringent requirements for waste treatment. Therefore, we have 
determined that MACT for both new and existing sources is the MACT 
floor level of control.
    e. Heat Exchange Systems. No control devices for cooling water were 
reported by the best performing sources. However, using the survey 
data, a relationship was found between HAP

[[Page 76431]]

emissions and how often a facility monitors cooling water for the 
presence of compounds that would indicate a leak. This relationship 
likely exists because once a leak is detected, actions are taken to 
repair the leak or take the leaking equipment out of service, thereby 
minimizing emissions from cooling water. Three of the five best 
performing facilities monitor monthly, one monitors weekly, and one 
reported using an on-line head space analyzer (a head space analyzer 
does not provide adequate indication of leaks to cooling water and was 
not considered in determining the heat exchange system component of the 
MACT floor).
    We have determined that the heat exchange system component of the 
MACT floor for existing sources is a cooling water LDAR program that 
includes monthly monitoring because this is the frequency of monitoring 
at the median facility. The heat exchange system component of the MACT 
floor for new sources includes weekly monitoring because this is the 
most frequent monitoring performed.
    One above-the-floor option is to require weekly monitoring at 
existing sources. Other above-the-floor options, which are not 
currently in place at any of the surveyed ethylene manufacturing 
facilities, are monitoring of the cooling water on a daily basis or 
monitoring continuously.
    We have determined that the MACT levels of control are the floor 
levels of control for new and existing sources: a LDAR program with 
monthly monitoring for existing sources and weekly monitoring for new 
sources. Based on the information we have, the average monitoring 
frequency in practice by the best performing 12 percent of the affected 
sources is monthly. We found only one facility monitoring more 
frequently (weekly). Based on these findings, cost considerations and 
anticipated emissions reductions, we believe that, for existing 
sources, monthly monitoring is an adequate frequency to satisfy MACT.
    If a leak is detected, repair is required to be completed within 15 
calender days unless delay is required for reasons specified in the 
proposed standards. The time allowed for repair is consistent with the 
time allowed for repair for other leaking equipment at an EMPU, and we 
have determined that it is an appropriate amount of time to allow for 
repair to heat exchange equipment as well.
    In addition to specifying the frequency of cooling water monitoring 
required, the proposed standards specify procedures for collecting and 
analyzing the samples. The test methods specified are based on the 
requirements of the HON which covers SOCMI sources having heat exchange 
system processes similar to ethylene production facilities. The 
requirements for where to obtain a cooling water sample are unique to 
an EMPU. Ethylene production requires a relatively high cooling water 
usage, approximately eight times that for a SOCMI unit. We are 
concerned that, due to the high total flow rate of cooling water, a 
leak in an EMPU would result in a concentration so low it would go 
undetected. To address this concern, we are requiring that cooling 
water be sampled at the inlet and outlet of each heat exchanger. This 
will ensure that the cooling water will be tested at the lowest 
possible flow rate, where leaks will be the least diluted. To reduce 
the burden that this requirement will cause, only heat exchangers used 
to cool fluids containing 5 percent HAP or greater are required to be 
tested. This is the same cutoff used to determine which components must 
be monitored as part of the LDAR program for equipment leaks.
    f. Equipment Leaks. The equipment leak emission types include 
emissions from specific components (pumps, compressors, pressure relief 
devices, gas valves, light liquid valves, heavy liquid valves, and 
connectors) of the process. A method for estimating controlled and 
uncontrolled equipment leak emissions from facilities in the SOCMI was 
used to quantify the effectiveness of control strategies in use at the 
five best performing facilities. This method is described in the 1995 
Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (EPA document 453/R-95-
017).
    The median control effectiveness is achieved by control strategies 
at three of the five best performing facilities. These three control 
strategies are considered to represent the equipment leak component of 
the MACT floor for existing sources. The median is expressed as the 
control effectiveness achieved by control strategies at three 
facilities because the control effectiveness achieved by these 
facilities is equivalent. The control strategies used by the three 
median facilities include an LDAR program that requires monitoring of 
valves, connectors, and in some cases compressors, pumps, and pressure 
relief devices. Emissions from compressors, pumps, and pressure relief 
devices that are not monitored are routed to control devices. The level 
of emissions used by the facilities to indicate a leak is 500 ppmv.
    Review of control strategies in use, permit requirements, and 
regulations for similar sources did not reveal any equipment leak 
control strategies more stringent than the MACT floor for existing 
sources. This is not unexpected considering the stringency of the MACT 
floor at existing sources. The equipment leak portion of the MACT floor 
requires all components to be monitored or controlled, so no additional 
components could be added to the requirements. The leak definition of 
the floor, 500 ppmv, is the lowest used in the ethylene manufacturing 
industry, with one exception. One facility is using a 300 ppmv leak 
definition. We do not have adequate data to determine how emissions 
would be impacted by using a leak definition of 300 ppmv rather than 
500 ppmv. The Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates document 
(EPA-453/R-95-017) does not include emission factors for leak 
definitions less than 500 ppmv. Due to the level of accuracy of the 
sampling and testing methods and the relatively small difference in 
leak definitions, the difference in emissions is likely to be minimal. 
We have not identified any options more stringent than the equipment 
leak floor component for existing sources. Therefore, the MACT level of 
control for equipment leaks at new and existing sources is based on the 
floor level of control for existing sources.
    g. Furnaces. Typically, the ethylene production process involves 
converting large hydrocarbon molecules into smaller molecules through a 
process referred to as ``thermal cracking.'' This takes place in the 
ethylene cracking furnace. Based on information provided in survey 
responses, the furnaces are fired with natural gas, refinery gas, off-
gas from the production process, or a combination of the three. 
Ethylene cracking furnaces are expected to have relatively low HAP 
emissions. The fuels burned in cracking furnaces contain relatively 
little HAP, and most organic HAP are destroyed in the combustion 
process. In fact, process heaters are used as control devices for 
process vents containing HAP. We decided to consider standards for gas-
fired process heaters because HAP emissions can result from incomplete 
combustion, and natural and refinery gas combustion has been shown to 
result in emissions of formaldehyde. Ethylene cracking furnaces could 
have been included in separate MACT standards that are currently being 
considered for process heaters. However, we decided to include cracking 
furnaces in the proposed NESHAP for ethylene manufacturing in order to 
establish comprehensive MACT standards that

[[Page 76432]]

cover all of the HAP emission types within an ethylene manufacturing 
process unit.
    None of the surveyed facilities reported controlling HAP emissions 
from furnaces using an add-on control device. In addition to add-on 
controls, we considered control techniques that may minimize HAP 
emissions. As combustion destroys most organic HAP, it is assumed that 
those furnaces operated with optimal combustion conditions would have 
the lowest HAP emissions. One difficulty in pursuing a level of good 
combustion as a regulatory requirement is in determining a parameter 
that accurately indicates good combustion. Excess oxygen has been 
suggested as a parameter that indicates whether good combustion is 
being achieved. Based on survey responses and discussions with industry 
representatives, the majority of ethylene furnaces are equipped with 
monitors for excess oxygen. At least one facility has automatic 
controls for excess oxygen. Generally, excess oxygen is monitored to 
ensure that adequate oxygen is available for combustion, and that 
efficient combustion is being achieved. Oxygen levels may also be 
monitored to ensure that they do not exceed a level that would result 
in excessive NOX emissions. Because excess oxygen is 
typically controlled by closing and opening dampers by hand, it is not 
precisely controlled, but rather allowed to fluctuate within an 
acceptable range. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the 
facilities have determined the relationship between excess oxygen and 
HAP emissions. Theoretically, three different furnaces, one with 
automatic excess oxygen controls, one with an excess oxygen monitor 
without automatic controls, and one without excess oxygen monitors 
could have the same level of HAP emissions because none of them are 
being operated to specifically control HAP emissions. Data are not 
available to determine whether HAP emissions reductions are actually 
being achieved by facilities monitoring and/or controlling excess 
oxygen. Therefore, we cannot require the use of excess oxygen monitors 
for controlling HAP emissions from ethylene cracking furnaces.
    Further, we have not identified any add-on controls or control 
techniques currently in use to control HAP emissions from ethylene 
cracking furnaces. The MACT floor for ethylene cracking furnaces is no 
control, and there are no known above-the-floor options. Thus, although 
ethylene cracking furnaces were considered in developing the proposed 
NESHAP, no regulatory requirements for them are included.
    h. Decoking. Coke is periodically removed from the coils within an 
ethylene cracking furnace through a process referred to as 
``decoking.'' During the decoking process, the furnace is isolated from 
the rest of the ethylene manufacturing process, and steam is used to 
strip the coke from the coils. The steam, products of combustion, and 
coke that exit the furnace coils are typically cooled, either with 
quench water or in a heat exchanger. Water and coke particles are 
removed with a knock-out pot or other mechanical control device. The 
resulting water stream is routed back into the process or is discarded. 
The non-condensed stream is emitted to the atmosphere or in some cases, 
routed into the furnace firebox.
    None of the facilities that received the section 114 survey 
reported having any test data for emissions from coke combustion. We 
were not able to locate any test data or published emission factors for 
coke combustion. There are reasons to believe HAP emissions from 
decoking are relatively low. It is not likely that the coke contains 
much volatile material, and volatile material should be destroyed 
during the combustion phase of the decoking process. However, the 
conditions within the coils are not expected to be conducive to good 
combustion, which may result in volatile material not being destroyed. 
Additionally, HAP emissions may be created in the decoking process. 
Another reason that it is important to consider emissions from decoking 
is the frequency with which it occurs. A typical furnace may be decoked 
between 8 and 12 times per year. A typical ethylene unit may comprise 
eight furnaces. Assuming a decoke lasts 36 hours, a typical ethylene 
unit may have a decoke of one of its furnaces occurring 40 percent of 
the time.
    Due to the potential for HAP emissions and the frequency of 
decoking, we believe that it is necessary to address decoking in the 
proposed NESHAP. We have determined that decoking is a shutdown 
activity and will, therefore, be addressed through a facility's 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The definition for a shutdown 
in the proposed NESHAP includes ``the cessation of operation of a 
regulated source and equipment required or used to comply with this 
subpart * * * for purposes of * * * periodic maintenance * * *.'' 
During decoking, the cracking process ceases in order to allow the 
furnace to be decoked, which is essentially a maintenance activity. 
Defining decoking as a shutdown activity requires decoking operations 
to be included in a facility's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 
This will require owners and operators of ethylene units to include in 
their plan procedures for decoking that will minimize emissions. This 
requirement is not expected to be burdensome to owners and operators as 
it is expected that most facilities already have written decoking 
procedures.
    Although it has been determined that the most appropriate way to 
address decoking is to consider it a shutdown activity, we reviewed 
information available to determine if it would be possible to establish 
a MACT emission limit for decoking. In the survey responses, two 
facilities reported routing decoking emissions from all furnaces to the 
furnace firebox. This technique may control HAP emissions from 
decoking, if there are any. However, its effectiveness is unknown. We 
are not aware of any test data for emissions before or after routing 
through the furnace firebox. Based on the information available, if a 
MACT analysis were performed for decoking, it is likely that the floor 
level of control would be no control. Routing emissions to the firebox 
could be considered as an above-the-floor option. However, it would be 
difficult to evaluate this option because its effectiveness is unknown. 
The results of the review of information available for decoking 
confirmed our decision to regard decoking as a shutdown activity.
    In addition to air emissions resulting from decoking operations, it 
is also possible that HAP may be present in the condensate stream that 
results when the steam, products of combustion, and coke are cooled and 
condensed. If the condensate stream is not recycled into the process 
and is discarded, it will be covered under the waste requirements that 
are also proposed today. Therefore, all possible sources of emissions 
from decoking operations are covered by the proposed NESHAP.
4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 
Reporting Requirements?
    We selected the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts YY, SS, TT, UU, and WW, to 
demonstrate and document compliance with the proposed NESHAP for 
ethylene production. The procedures and methods set out in these 
subparts are, where appropriate, based on procedures and methods that 
we previously developed for use in implementing standards for emission 
point sources

[[Page 76433]]

similar to those being proposed for the Ethylene Production source 
category.
    General compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements that would apply across source categories and affected 
emission points are contained within 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY 
(Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1113). We specify the applicability 
assessment procedures necessary to determine whether an emission point 
is required to apply control. These requirements are dependent on the 
emission point for which control applicability needs to be assessed and 
the form of the applicability cutoff selected for an individual source 
category (e.g., HAP concentration cutoff level, above which, control is 
required).
    We selected emission point and/or control device-specific 
monitoring (including continuous monitoring), recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements included under common control requirements in 
subparts promulgated for storage vessels (40 CFR part 63, subpart WW); 
equipment leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or TT); and closed vent 
systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel gas 
system or a process (40 CFR part 63, subpart SS). These subparts 
contain a common set of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements. We established these subparts to ensure consistency of 
the air emission requirements applied to similar emission points with 
pollutant streams containing gaseous HAP.
    We believe that the compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements of subparts YY, SS, TT, and UU are appropriate 
for demonstrating and documenting compliance with the requirements 
proposed for the Ethylene Production source category. This is because 
these requirements were established for standards with similar form, 
and similar emission points with pollutant streams of gaseous HAP for 
which we are requiring MACT compliance demonstration and documentation 
under this proposal.

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

1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
    We estimate that the proposed NESHAP will decrease HAP emissions by 
992 Mg/yr (1,090 TPY) (a 60 percent reduction) and decrease VOC 
emissions by 9,271 Mg/yr (10,188 TPY) (a 64 percent reduction).
2. What Are the Cost Impacts?
    The cost of implementing the control techniques is expected to vary 
widely between ethylene manufacturing facilities. The cost of control 
techniques for some facilities will be minimal because they already 
have in place the work practices, equipment, and control devices 
required to comply with the proposed NESHAP. The highest costs will be 
incurred by facilities that are not currently complying with the BWON 
and will have to add waste management and treatment equipment to comply 
with the proposed NESHAP. We estimate the average cost of controls for 
these facilities to be $1.03 million. For facilities that already have 
waste management and treatment equipment, we estimate the average cost 
to be $7,600.
3. What Are the Economic Impacts?
    The economic impact analysis for the proposed NESHAP for ethylene 
production shows that the annual compliance costs are less than 0.01 
percent of the sales for the 22 affected firms. In fact, seven firms 
are expected to experience small savings in costs as a result of 
implementing the proposed NESHAP. Therefore, no adverse impact is 
expected to occur for these firms in the ethylene manufacturing 
industry. Estimation of the cost and economic impacts of the proposed 
NESHAP is detailed in memoranda included in the docket for the proposed 
NESHAP (Docket No. A-98-22).
4. What Are the Nonair Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?
    We believe that there would not be significant adverse nonair 
health, environmental, or energy impacts associated with the proposed 
NESHAP for the Ethylene Production source category. This is based on 
the types of control techniques expected to be used to comply with the 
proposed NESHAP. The majority of control techniques are either work 
practices, such as an LDAR program for equipment leaks and cooling 
water; or equipment standards, such as floating roofs for storage 
vessels which do not cause increases in water pollution; or solid 
waste. Because most of the control techniques expected to be used to 
comply with the proposed NESHAP are either work practices or equipment 
standards, minimal increases in energy use are expected.

E. Solicitation of Comments

    Representatives of the ethylene industry have reviewed our MACT 
floor approach and suggested that the MACT floor should not include 
connector monitoring. Industry does not refute that facilities are 
complying with State requirements for connector monitoring, or that the 
best performing facilities are those with the most stringent LDAR 
programs. However, industry believes the emissions from connectors are 
inflated due to the fact that we rely upon the SOCMI emission factors, 
which they believe are not appropriate for connectors in the ethylene 
industry. Industry representatives have submitted data to support their 
position that emissions from connectors are very low and, therefore, 
routine connector monitoring at ethylene facilities does not result in 
reduced emissions. Industry has concluded that the use of different 
ethylene industry-derived emission factors for connectors would mean 
that the determination of the best performing 12 percent of facilities 
would not be as heavily influenced by connector emissions as it is in 
our analysis. They suggest that a different set of five facilities 
(equivalent to the best performing 12 percent of facilities) would be 
among the best performers than the five facilities upon which the MACT 
floor for this proposal was determined.
    The data provided by industry, along with correspondence from 
industry representatives and summaries of stakeholder meetings have 
been placed in the docket (Docket No. A-98-22). We are soliciting 
comment on these data and industry's conclusions. We did not receive 
industry's data in time for evaluation prior to this proposal.
    We are also soliciting comments and data to support the 
determination of the process vent component of the MACT for existing 
sources. The MACT floor level of control for existing sources requires 
that vents with flow rates greater than or equal to 0.011 scmm and HAP 
concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppmv must be controlled to 
reduce HAP emissions by 98 weight-percent or to 20 ppmv. An above-the-
floor option considered is to require vents with flow rates greater 
than or equal to 0.008 scmm and HAP concentration of 30 ppmv or greater 
to be controlled. This option is based on 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN--
Distillation Operations NSPS, which applies to one of the best 
performing facilities and is the same as the process vent component of 
the MACT for new sources. We do not have data to assess the cost 
effectiveness of lowering the control applicability cutoffs for 
existing sources, but we believe the cost would be minimal because 
there are relatively few process vents, and the cutoffs being 
considered are so similar to the MACT floor. Additionally, having the 
same cutoffs for new and existing sources would simplify compliance 
with, and enforcement of, the proposed NESHAP. We are soliciting 
comments and data to:

[[Page 76434]]

(1) Support or refute the assumption that there are few vents with flow 
rates between 0.008 and 0.011 scmm and HAP concentrations between 30 
and 50 ppmv, (2) aid in estimating the cost of controlling these vents 
if they do exist, and (3) support or refute that there is a benefit 
associated with simplifying the proposed NESHAP by having the same 
requirements for vents at new and existing sources.
    We are also soliciting comments on the monitoring requirements for 
heat exchangers. The proposed standards require that cooling water 
samples must be collected at the inlet and outlet of each heat 
exchanger that cools process fluids with 5 percent HAP or greater. An 
alternative option that was considered would allow samples to be 
collected at the entrance and exit of each heat exchange system, or at 
locations where the cooling water enters and exits each heat exchanger, 
or any combination of heat exchangers as long as the cooling water flow 
rate at the sampling point does not exceed a specified value. We do not 
have data to determine the maximum flow rate to ensure that leaks will 
be detected with the test methods used. We are soliciting comments and 
flow rate data to support or refute the proposed requirements for 
sampling cooling water at EMPU heat exchangers. We are also soliciting 
comment to support or refute the assumption that the applicability 
criteria of 5 percent HAP is appropriate for determining which heat 
exchangers must be monitored for leaks.

V. Spandex Production

A. Introduction

1. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the 
Emissions?
    The HAP emission points covered by the proposed NESHAP include 
process vents, storage vessels, and fiber spinning lines. The HAP 
emitted from spandex production facilities include toluene and TDI. The 
proposed NESHAP would regulate emissions of these compounds, as well as 
other incidental organic HAP that are emitted during the manufacture of 
spandex fiber. The 1997 baseline HAP emissions estimate for the 
facilities using the reaction spinning process is 303 Mg/yr (334 TPY). 
The majority of these emissions are from process vents and fiber 
spinning lines.
2. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the HAP Emitted?
    The principle HAP associated with spandex production facilities is 
toluene; another HAP emitted in very small quantities is TDI.
    Toluene. Effects on the central nervous system have been reported 
from acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposure to toluene and 
include dysfunction, fatigue, sleepiness, headaches, and nausea. 
Reported effects from short-term high level exposures also include 
cardiovascular symptoms in humans. Additional long-term exposure 
effects include irritation of the eye, throat and respiratory tract. 
Studies of workers occupationally exposed and animals exposed in the 
laboratory have reported adverse affects on the developing fetus. Due 
to a lack of information for humans and inadequate animal evidence, EPA 
does not consider toluene classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
    TDI. Acute exposure to high levels of TDI can result in severe 
irritation of the skin and eyes and affects the respiratory, 
gastrointestinal, and central nervous systems. Chronic exposure of 
workers on the job has resulted in significant decreases in lung 
function and an asthma-like reaction characterized by wheezing, 
dyspnea, and bronchial constriction. Animal studies have reported 
significantly increased incidences of tumors of the pancreas, liver, 
and mammary glands from exposure to TDI via gavage (experimentally 
placing the chemical in the stomach). The EPA has not evaluated TDI for 
carcinogenicity, however, the International Agency for Research on 
Cancer has classified TDI as a possible human carcinogen.

B. Summary of Proposed Standards for Spandex Production

1. What Is the Source Category To Be Regulated?
    The Spandex Production source category includes any facility that 
manufactures spandex fiber by the reaction spinning process. Spandex 
fiber is a long-chain, synthetic polymer comprised of at least 85 
percent by mass of a segmented polyurethane. The spandex production 
process involves the reaction of a diisocyanate with a polyol 
(polyester or polyether glycol) to generate diisocyanate-terminated 
prepolymer. The prepolymer is extruded (or spun) while simultaneously 
reacting with a chain-extender in a spin bath to generate spandex 
fiber.
    There are two spandex production facilities in the United States 
that use the reaction spinning process, and both are presently major 
sources. The proposed NESHAP would apply to any major sources that 
produce spandex fiber by reaction spinning. Final determination of 
major source status occurs as part of the compliance determination 
process undertaken by each individual source. Area sources would not be 
subject to the proposed NESHAP.
    In reaction spinning: (1) The spandex prepolymer is extruded into 
spinning baths containing HAP solvent, (2) the baths are covered with 
hoods and are open to the room air, (3) the hoods and room air are 
vented to an emission control device, (4) the spandex polymer is 
generated simultaneously with extrusion, (5) drying is a separate 
process step, and (6) there are large quantities of HAP emissions.
2. What Is the Affected Source?
    The affected source consists of all process vents, storage vessels, 
and fiber spinning lines that are associated with reaction spinning 
spandex production processes located at a major source of HAP 
emissions, as defined in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A.
3. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards?
    The following discussion briefly summarizes the proposed control 
requirements for the affected emission points.
    a. Process Vents. For process vents, HAP emissions are required to 
be controlled by routing emissions through a closed vent system to one 
of the following: (1) A flare, (2) an enclosed combustion device that 
reduces HAP emissions by 95 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 
ppmv (corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the 
control device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust the 
emissions), or (3) a recovery device that reduces HAP emissions by 95 
weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv. Requirements are the 
same for both new and existing sources.
    b. Storage Vessels. Storage vessels with capacity greater than 47.3 
cubic meters (12,500 gallons) that store materials with a maximum true 
vapor pressure of organic HAP greater than or equal to 3.4 kilopascals 
(0.5 psia) are required to control organic HAP emissions by using an 
external floating roof equipped with specified primary and secondary 
seals, by using a fixed roof with an internal floating roof equipped 
with specified seals, or by venting emissions through a closed vent 
system to a control device achieving 95 weight-percent control. 
Requirements are the same for both new and existing sources.
    c. Fiber Spinning Lines. For fiber spinning lines, HAP emissions 
are required to be captured and vented through a closed vent system to 
a

[[Page 76435]]

control device achieving 95 weight-percent control or 20 ppmv 
(corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is the control 
device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust the 
emissions). Requirements are the same for both new and existing 
sources.
4. What Are the Testing and Initial and Continuous Compliance 
Requirements?
    We are proposing testing and initial and continuous compliance 
requirements that are, where appropriate, based on procedures and 
methods that we have previously developed and used for emission points 
similar to those for which we are proposing NESHAP with this action.
    For continuous compliance, you must install continuous parameter 
monitoring systems (CPMS) and conduct a performance evaluation of the 
CPMS. You must identify a relevant parameter that will indicate the 
control device is operating properly and then continuously monitor the 
selected parameter.
5. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?
    If you are subject to requirements under the Generic MACT standards 
subpart, you would be required to comply with general notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
    You must submit one-time reports of the (1) start of construction 
for new facilities, (2) anticipated and actual start-up dates for new 
facilities, and (3) physical or operational changes to existing 
facilities. You are also required to maintain all records for a period 
of at least 5 years.
    If you own or operate an affected source that has an initial 
startup date before the promulgation date of standards for that 
affected source under the Generic MACT standards subpart, you must 
submit a one-time initial notification. You must submit this 
notification within 1 year after the promulgation date of standards for 
an affected source under the Generic MACT standards subpart (or within 
1 year after the affected source becomes subject to the Generic MACT 
standards subpart).
    For sources constructed or reconstructed after the effective date 
of the relevant standards, the General Provisions require that the 
source submit an application for approval of construction or 
reconstruction. The application is required to contain information on 
the air pollution control that will be used for each potential HAP 
emission point.
    The information in the Initial Notification and the application for 
construction or reconstruction will enable enforcement personnel to 
identify the number of sources subject to, or are already in compliance 
with, the standards.
    You must also submit a Notification of Compliance Status report. 
You must have this notification signed by a responsible company 
official who certifies its accuracy and that the affected source has 
complied with the relevant standards. You must submit the results of 
any required performance tests (as applicable) as part of the 
Notification of Compliance Status report. You must submit the 
Notification of Compliance Status report within 60 days after the 
compliance date specified for an affected source subject to the Generic 
MACT standards subpart.
    For CPMS, you must submit a report of the performance evaluation 
results to the delegated authority. You must also submit reports of 
parameter monitoring deviations and CPMS performance deviations to the 
delegated authority semiannually.

C. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Spandex 
Production

1. How Did EPA Select the Source Category?
    We listed Spandex Production as a category of major sources of HAP 
on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Today's proposed standards apply to 
reaction spinning processes only.
2. How Did EPA Determine the Affected Source?
    The affected source is the combination of all regulated operations 
at a spandex production facility. The following regulated operations 
are typically performed at spandex production facilities and are part 
of the affected source: process vents, storage vessels, and fiber 
spinning lines. These are the typical operations found at spandex 
production facilities, and we determined MACT for these operations.
3. How Did EPA Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards 
for Existing and New Sources?
    There are two spandex production facilities in the United States 
that produce spandex fiber by reaction spinning; these facilities are 
owned by one company. Both are major sources as defined under section 
112(a) of the CAA.
    For a source category with fewer than 30 major sources, section 
112(d)(3) of the CAA directs that the MACT floor be based on the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five 
sources. The MACT floor for new sources in a source category is 
required to reflect the level of control being achieved by the best 
controlled similar source. In setting the MACT for spandex production 
using reaction spinning, we looked at the level of control presently in 
place at the two reaction spinning major source facilities.
    At reaction spinning process spandex production facilities, there 
are a number of process vent streams containing HAP. The process vent 
types include vents associated with prepolymer reactors, dryers, and 
the solvent recovery system. The floor for process vents at reaction 
spinning processes requires 95 percent control by venting through a 
closed vent system to a control device. The two reaction spinning 
process facilities already have emission controls in place for process 
vents that are equivalent to those required by the Generic MACT NESHAP. 
We are not aware of any additional controls that would get further 
emissions reductions that would be more effective or reasonable for 
beyond-the-floor control for process vents. Therefore, MACT for process 
vents is the floor level of control.
    The storage vessel control requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
WW, also called ``Level 2'' storage vessel controls, require the 
vessels to be equipped with a floating roof or covered and vented 
through a closed vent system to a control device. The two reaction 
spinning process facilities already have Level 2 emission controls on 
their storage vessels, and this level of control is considered to be 
the floor. We are not aware of any additional controls that would get 
further emissions reductions and be more effective or reasonable for 
beyond-the-floor control for storage vessels. Therefore, MACT for 
storage vessels at reaction spinning process spandex production 
facilities is the MACT floor.
    During the fiber spinning step, HAP are volatilized from the spin 
bath solvent tanks, washing tanks, and the wet belt dryers. The solvent 
tanks, wash tanks, and wet belt dryers are covered with hoods and 
vented to an emission control device. There are also emissions into the 
room air, and room air is vented to an emission control device. At the 
two facilities in this source category, emissions from the fiber 
spinning lines are controlled by capture and subsequent routing to an 
emission control device. The floor for fiber spinning lines is capture 
of emissions around the spinning, washing and wet belt dryer areas of 
the spinning line and

[[Page 76436]]

venting to a control device that reduces HAP emissions by 95 weight-
percent. We are not aware of any additional controls that would get 
further emissions reductions and be more effective or reasonable for 
beyond-the-floor control for fiber spinning lines. Therefore, MACT for 
fiber spinning lines is the floor level of control.
4. How Did EPA Select the Compliance, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 
Reporting Requirements?
    We selected the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS and WW, to demonstrate and 
document compliance with the spandex production standards. The 
procedures and methods set out in these subparts are, where 
appropriate, based on procedures and methods that we previously 
developed for use in implementing standards for emission point sources 
similar to those being proposed for the Spandex Production source 
category.
    General compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements that would apply across source categories and affected 
emission points are contained within 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY (i.e., 
Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1113). We specify the applicability assessment 
procedures necessary to determine whether an emission point is required 
to apply control. These procedures are dependent on the emission point 
for which control applicability needs to be assessed and the form of 
the applicability cutoff selected for an individual source category 
(e.g., a HAP concentration cutoff level, above which control is 
required).
    We selected monitoring (including continuous monitoring), 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements included under common control 
requirements in subparts promulgated for storage vessels (40 CFR part 
63, subpart WW), and closed vent systems, control devices, recovery 
devices and routing to a fuel gas system or a process (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS). These subparts contain a common set of monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. We established these subparts 
to ensure consistency of the air emission requirements applied to 
similar emission points with pollutant streams containing gaseous 
organic HAP. The rationale for the establishment of these subparts and 
requirements contained within each subpart is presented in the proposal 
preamble for the Generic MACT standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY 
(63 FR 55186-55191).
    We believe that the compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts WW and SS, are 
appropriate for demonstrating and documenting compliance with the 
requirements proposed for the Spandex Production source category. This 
is because these requirements were established for standards with 
similar formats and similar emission points with pollutant streams of 
gaseous organic HAP for which we are requiring MACT compliance 
demonstration and documentation under this proposal.

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

1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
    There are no additional emissions reductions achieved by the 
proposed NESHAP. The level of control required by the proposed NESHAP 
is already in place at the two affected reaction spinning facilities.
2. What Are the Cost Impacts?
    The total estimated annual compliance cost of the proposed NESHAP 
for the Spandex Production source category is $78,040. This estimate 
includes annualized capital costs for monitoring equipment purchased. 
Annual costs also include monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
costs. Costs were not included for control equipment since this is 
already in place at the two reaction spinning process facilities.
    The capital costs are estimated to be $32,820 (in 1998 dollars). 
The capital costs are for purchase of thermocouples and liquid flow 
transducers for CPMS equipment, and closed vent systems leak detection 
monitors. These costs are more than likely an overestimate since the 
two affected facilities already have monitors on their carbon 
adsorbers.
3. What Are the Economic Impacts?
    The goal of the economic impact analysis is to estimate the market 
response of the spandex production facilities to the proposed NESHAP 
and to determine the economic effects that may result from the proposed 
NESHAP. The Spandex Production source category contains five 
facilities, but only the two facilities that use the reaction spinning 
process are affected by the proposed NESHAP. These potentially affected 
facilities are owned by one company.
    Spandex fiber production leads to potential HAP emissions from 
fiber spinning lines, storage tanks, and process vents; however, the 
emission sources are well controlled by the affected spandex 
manufacturing facilities. The mandated levels of control are met at 
these sources; therefore, no costs are expected to be incurred by the 
spandex facilities in order to comply with the proposed NESHAP. 
Instead, the compliance costs for the proposed NESHAP relate primarily 
to monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping activities. The estimated 
total annualized costs for the proposed NESHAP are $78,040, which 
represents less than 0.01 percent of the revenues of the companies that 
own the spandex manufacturing facilities. The proposed NESHAP are, 
therefore, expected to have a negligible impact on the Spandex 
Production source category.
    The economic impacts at the facility and company levels are 
measured by comparing the annualized compliance costs for each entity 
to its revenues. A cost-to-sales ratio is first calculated and then is 
multiplied by 100 to convert the ratio into percentages. For the 
proposed NESHAP, a cost-to-sales ratio exceeding 1 percent is 
determined to be an initial indicator of the potential for a 
significant facility impact. Revenues at the facility level are not 
available, therefore estimated facility revenues received from the sale 
of spandex fiber are used. Both affected facilities are expected to 
incur positive compliance costs. The ratio of costs to estimated 
revenues range from a low of 0.22 percent to a high of 0.35 percent. 
Thus, on average, the economic impact of the proposed NESHAP is minimal 
for the facilities producing spandex fibers.
    The share of compliance costs to company sales are calculated to 
determine company level impacts. One company owns the two affected 
facilities, so only one firm faces positive compliance costs from the 
proposed NESHAP. The ratio of costs to company revenues is 0.10 
percent. At the company level, the proposed NESHAP are not anticipated 
to have a significant economic impact on companies that own and operate 
the spandex fiber facilities. For more information, consult the 
economic impact analysis report entitled Economic Impact Analysis: 
Spandex Production, which is in the docket for the spandex source 
category.
4. What Are the Nonair Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?
    We believe that there would not be significant adverse 
environmental or energy impacts associated with the proposed NESHAP for 
the Spandex Production source category. The industry's baseline level 
of control is high, and the proposed NESHAP are currently being 
achieved for the emission point types. Environmental

[[Page 76437]]

impacts from the application of the control or recovery devices 
proposed for the Spandex Production source category are also expected 
to be minimal for secondary air pollutants. In general, we determine 
impacts relative to the baseline that is set at the level of control in 
absence of the proposed NESHAP.
    There is no incremental increase in emissions related to water 
pollution or solid waste as a result of today's proposed NESHAP.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether a proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive 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.
    It has been determined that the proposed NESHAP are not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and are, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the proposed NESHAP have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An ICR document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 1983.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail 
at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies 
Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
``[email protected],'' or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also 
be downloaded from the internet at ``http://www.epa.gov/icr.''
    Information is required to ensure compliance with the proposed 
NESHAP. If the relevant information were collected less frequently, EPA 
would not be reasonably assured that a source is in compliance with the 
proposed NESHAP. In addition, EPA's authority to take administrative 
action would be reduced significantly.
    The proposed NESHAP would require owners or operators of affected 
sources to retain records for a period of 5 years. The 5 year retention 
period is consistent with the provisions of the General Provisions of 
40 CFR part 63 and with the 5 year record retention requirement in the 
operating permit program under title V of the CAA.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed NESHAP 
are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). 
All information submitted to us for which a claim of confidentiality is 
made will be safeguarded according to our policies in 40 CFR part 2, 
subpart B, ``Confidentiality of Business Information.''
    The EPA expects the proposed NESHAP to affect a total of 75 
facilities over the first 3 years. The EPA assumes that no new 
facilities will become subject to the proposed NESHAP during each of 
the first 3 years. The EPA expects 75 existing facilities to be 
affected by the proposed NESHAP, and these existing facilities will 
begin complying in the third year.
    The estimated average annual burden for the first 3 years after 
promulgation of the NESHAP for the industries and the implementing 
agency is outlined below. You can find the details of this information 
collection in the ``Standard Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR No. 
1983.01,'' in Docket No. A-97-17.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Operating
                                                                             Capital        and
                Affected entity                  Total hours  Labor costs   costs  (10  maintenance  Total costs
                                                               (10 \3\ $)     \3\ $)     costs  (10   (10 \3\ $)
                                                                                           \3\ $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................................       33,926        1,510        4,901           16        6,427
Implementing agency............................        3,465          117            0            0          117
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. Control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies 
Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk 
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since 
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 
days after December 6, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of having 
its full effect if OMB receives it by January 5, 2001. The final rule 
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure

[[Page 76438]]

``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed rule. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed rule.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS 
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their 
concerns and the Agency's position supporting the need to issue the 
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a 
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification 
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely 
manner.
    The proposed NESHAP will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. No 
facilities subject to the proposed NESHAP are owned by State or local 
governments. Therefore, State and local governments will not have any 
direct compliance costs resulting from the proposed NESHAP. 
Furthermore, EPA is directed to develop the proposed NESHAP by section 
112 of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive 
Order do not apply to the proposed NESHAP.

D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, we may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or we consult with those 
governments. If we comply by consulting, we are required by Executive 
Order 13084 to provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of 
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of our prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires us to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.''
    Today's proposed NESHAP do not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments are 
believed to be affected by the proposed NESHAP. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
the proposed NESHAP.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we 
must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    We have determined that the proposed NESHAP do not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is 
approximately $22.2 million per year. The proposed NESHAP contain no 
mandates affecting State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, today's 
proposed NESHAP are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 
205 of the UMRA.
    We have determined that the proposed NESHAP contain no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because they contain no requirements that apply to such 
governments or impose obligations upon them.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A

[[Page 76439]]

small business whose parent company has fewer than 1000 employees (500 
for the Carbon Black source category); (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. There 
are no small entities affected by this proposed rule.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA 
to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and 
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The proposed NESHAP involve technical standards. The EPA proposes 
to use EPA Methods 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 2c, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 18, 25, 
25a, 26, 26a, 316, and 320. Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA 
conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in 
addition to these EPA methods. One voluntary consensus standard was 
identified as applicable and EPA proposes to use it in the proposed 
NESHAP.
    The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) consensus 
standard, ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases described below for 
inclusion in the proposed NESHAP in addition to EPA Methods. Similar to 
EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also a performance-
based method for measurement of gaseous organic compounds. However, 
ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific use of highly 
portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages over the 
traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less stringent 
criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method 18. 
Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18 where: 
(1) The target compounds are those listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99, and (2) the target concentration is between 150 parts per billion 
by volume and 100 ppmv.
    For target compounds not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, but 
potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies 
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, 
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed, 
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no 
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water 
soluble. For target compounds not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99 
and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 does 
not apply.
    The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM 6420-99 into 40 
CFR 63.14 for application to subpart SS of part 63. The EPA will also 
cite Method 18 as a GC option in addition to ASTM D6420-99. This will 
allow the continued use of other GC configurations.
    For EPA Methods 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 2c, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 25, 
25a, 26, 26a, 316, and 320, no applicable voluntary consensus standards 
were found at this time. The search and review results have been 
documented and are placed in the Generic MACT docket (Docket No. A-97-
17).
    The EPA requests comment on compliance demonstration requirements 
proposed today and specifically invites the public to identify 
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. Comments should 
explain why the proposed NESHAP should adopt these voluntary consensus 
standards in lieu of EPA's standards. Emission test methods and 
performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be 
accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method 
validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method 
(if a method other than Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, is 
used).

H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance 
and not on health or safety risks. Additionally, the proposed NESHAP 
are not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous air 
pollutants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Dated: November 3, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR AFFECTED SOURCE CATEGORIES

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Part 63 is proposed to be amended by adding a new subpart XX to 
read as follows:

Subpart XX--National Emission Standards for Ethylene Manufacturing 
Process Units: Heat Exchange Systems and Waste

Sec.

Introduction

63.1080   What does this subpart do?
63.1081   When must I comply with the requirements of this subpart?

Applicability for Heat Exchange Systems

63.1082   Does this subpart apply to my heat exchange system?

[[Page 76440]]

63.1083   What heat exchange systems are exempt from the 
requirements of this subpart?

Heat Exchange System Requirements

63.1084   What are the general requirements for heat exchange 
systems?

Monitoring Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems

63.1085   How must I monitor for leaks to cooling water?
63.1086   Where must I monitor for leaks to cooling water?

Repair Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems

63.1087   What actions must I take if a leak is detected?
63.1088   In what situations may I delay leak repair, and what 
actions must I take for delay of repair?

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems

63.1089   What records must I keep?
63.1090   What reports must I submit?

Background for Waste Requirements

63.1091   What do the waste requirements do?
63.1092   What are the major differences between the requirements of 
40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, and the waste requirements for ethylene 
production sources?

Applicability for Waste Requirements

63.1093   Does this subpart apply to my waste streams?
63.1094   What waste streams are exempt from the requirements of 
this subpart?

Waste Requirements

63.1095   What specific requirements must I comply with?
63.1096   What requirements must I comply with if I transfer waste 
offsite?

Definitions for Waste Requirements

63.1097   What definitions do I need to know?

Implementation and Enforcement

63.1098   Who implements and enforces this subpart?

Tables to Subpart XX

Table 1 to Subpart XX--Hazardous Air Pollutants
Table 2 to Subpart XX--Specific Differences in Requirements of this 
subpart and 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF
Table 3 to Subpart XX--Sections of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF, that 
are not Included in the Requirements of this Subpart

Introduction


Sec. 63.1080  What does this subpart do?

    This subpart establishes requirements for controlling emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from heat exchange systems and waste 
streams at new and existing ethylene manufacturing process units.


Sec. 63.1081  When must I comply with the requirements of this subpart?

    You must comply with the requirements of this subpart according to 
the schedule specified in Sec. 63.1102(a).

Applicability for Heat Exchange Systems


Sec. 63.1082  Does this subpart apply to my heat exchange system?

    The provisions of this subpart apply to your heat exchange system 
if you own or operate an ethylene manufacturing process unit expressly 
referenced to this subpart XX from subpart YY of this part.


Sec. 63.1083  What heat exchange systems are exempt from the 
requirements of this subpart?

    Your heat exchange system is exempt from the requirements in 
Secs. 63.1084 and 63.1085 if it meets at least one of the criteria in 
paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section.
    (a) Your heat exchange system operates with the minimum pressure on 
the cooling water side at least 35 kilopascals greater than the maximum 
pressure on the process side.
    (b) Your heat exchange system contains an intervening cooling 
fluid, containing less than 5 percent by weight of HAP, between the 
process and the cooling water. This intervening fluid must serve to 
isolate the cooling water from the process fluid and must not be sent 
through a cooling tower or discharged. For purposes of this section, 
discharge does not include emptying for maintenance purposes.
    (c) The once-through heat exchange system is subject to a National 
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with an allowable 
discharge limit of 1 part per million by weight (ppmw) or less above 
influent concentration or 10 percent or less above influent 
concentration, whichever is greater.
    (d) Your once-through heat exchange system is subject to a NPDES 
permit that meets the conditions in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) The permit requires monitoring of a parameter or condition to 
detect a leak of process fluids to cooling water.
    (2) The permit specifies or includes the normal range of the 
parameter or condition.
    (3) The permit requires monthly or more frequent monitoring for the 
parameters selected as leak indicators.
    (4) The permit requires you to report and correct leaks to the 
cooling water when the parameter or condition exceeds the normal range.
    (e) Your recirculating heat exchange system cools process fluids 
that contain less than 5 percent by weight of HAP.
    (f) The once-through heat exchange system cools process fluids that 
contain less than 5 percent by weight of HAP.

Heat Exchange System Requirements


Sec. 63.1084  What are the general requirements for heat exchange 
systems?

    Unless you meet one of the requirements for exemptions in 
Sec. 63.1083, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) through 
(d) of this section.
    (a) Monitor the cooling water for the presence of substances that 
indicate a leak according to Secs. 63.1085 and 63.1086.
    (b) If you detect a leak, repair it according to Sec. 63.1087 
unless repair is delayed according to Sec. 63.1088.
    (c) Keep the records specified in Sec. 63.1089.
    (d) Submit the reports specified in Sec. 63.1090.

Monitoring Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems


Sec. 63.1085  How must I monitor for leaks to cooling water?

    You must monitor for leaks to cooling water according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
    (a) Monitor the cooling water for HAP (either in total or 
speciated) or other representative substances (e.g., total organic 
carbon or volatile organic compounds (VOC)) that indicate the presence 
of a leak in the heat exchange system.
    (b) Monitor the cooling water monthly for heat exchange systems at 
existing sources; weekly for heat exchange systems at new sources.
    (c) Determine the concentration of the monitored substance in the 
cooling water using any method listed in 40 CFR part 136, as long as 
the method is sensitive to concentrations as low as 10 ppmw. Use the 
same method for both entrance and exit samples. Alternative methods may 
be used upon approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
Administrator.
    (d) Take a minimum of three sets of samples at each entrance and 
exit as defined in Sec. 63.1086(a).
    (e) Calculate the average entrance and exit concentrations, 
correcting for the addition of make-up water and evaporative losses, if 
applicable. Using a one-sided statistical procedure at the 0.05 level 
of significance, if the exit mean concentration is at least 1 ppmw or 
10 percent of the entrance mean, whichever is greater, you have 
detected a leak.

[[Page 76441]]

Sec. 63.1086  Where must I monitor for leaks to cooling water?

    You must collect samples at the entrance and exit of each 
nondirect-contact heat exchanger in the ethylene manufacturing process 
unit used to cool fluids containing 5 percent by weight organic HAP (or 
other mentioned substances) or greater.

Repair Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems


Sec. 63.1087  What actions must I take if a leak is detected?

    If a leak is detected, you must comply with the requirements in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section unless repair is delayed 
according to Sec. 63.1088.
    (a) Repair the leak as soon as practical but not later than 15 
calender days after you received the results of monitoring tests that 
indicated a leak. You must repair the leak unless you demonstrate that 
the results are due to a condition other than a leak.
    (b) Once the leak has been repaired, confirm that the heat exchange 
system has been repaired according to the monitoring requirements in 
Secs. 63.1085 and 63.1086 within 7 calender days of the repair or 
startup, whichever is later.


Sec. 63.1088  In what situations may I delay leak repair, and what 
actions must I take for delay of repair?

    You may delay repair of heat exchange systems for which leaks have 
been detected if the leaking equipment is isolated from the process. 
You may also delay repair if repair is technically infeasible without a 
shutdown, and you meet one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) through 
(c) of this section.
    (a) If a shutdown is expected within 15 calendar days of 
determining delay of repair is necessary, you are not required to have 
a special shutdown before that planned shutdown.
    (b) If a shutdown is not expected within 15 calendar days of 
determining delay of repair is necessary, you may delay repair if a 
shutdown for repair would cause greater emissions than the potential 
emissions from delaying repair until the next shutdown of the process 
equipment associated with the leaking heat exchanger. You must document 
the basis for the determination that a shutdown for repair would cause 
greater emissions than the emissions likely to result from delay of 
repair. The documentation process must include the activities in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Specify a schedule for completing the repair as soon as 
practical.
    (2) Calculate the potential emissions from the leaking heat 
exchanger by multiplying the concentration of HAP (or other monitored 
substances) in the cooling water from the leaking heat exchanger by the 
flowrate of the cooling water from the leaking heat exchanger and by 
the expected duration of the delay.
    (3) Determine emissions from purging and depressurizing the 
equipment that will result from the unscheduled shutdown for the 
repair.
    (c) If repair is delayed for reasons other than those specified in 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you may delay repair a maximum of 
30 calendar days. You must demonstrate that the necessary parts or 
personnel were not available.

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems


Sec. 63.1089  What records must I keep?

    You must keep the records in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
section, according to the requirements of Sec. 63.1109(c).
    (a) Monitoring data required by Sec. 63.1085 that indicates a leak, 
the date the leak was detected, or, if applicable, the basis for 
determining there is no leak.
    (b) The dates of efforts to repair leaks.
    (c) The method or procedures used to confirm repair of a leak, and 
the date the repair was confirmed.
    (d) Documentation of delay of repair as specified in Sec. 63.1088.


Sec. 63.1090  What reports must I submit?

    If you delay repair for your heat exchange system, you must report 
the delay of repair in the semiannual report required by 
Sec. 63.1110(e). If the leak remains unrepaired, you must continue to 
report the delay of repair in semiannual reports until you repair the 
leak. You must include the information in paragraphs (a) through (e) of 
this section in the semiannual report.
    (a) The fact that a leak was detected, and the date that the leak 
was detected.
    (b) Whether or not the leak has been repaired.
    (c) The reasons for delay of repair. If you delayed the repair as 
provided in Sec. 63.1088(b), documentation of emissions estimates.
    (d) If a leak remains unrepaired, the expected date of repair.
    (e) If a leak is repaired, the date the leak was successfully 
repaired.

Background for Waste Requirements


Sec. 63.1091  What do the waste requirements do?

    The waste requirements in this subpart require you to comply with 
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, National Emission Standards 
for Benzene Waste Operations. Because the requirements of subpart FF of 
40 CFR part 61 regulate benzene emissions and this subpart regulates 
HAP, there are some differences between the ethylene production waste 
requirements and those of subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61. Additionally, 
some compliance options available in subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61 do 
not apply to ethylene production sources.


Sec. 63.1092  What are the major differences between the requirements 
of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, and the waste requirements for ethylene 
production sources?

    The major differences between the requirements of 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart FF and the requirements for ethylene production sources are 
listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
    (a) The requirements for ethylene production sources apply to all 
ethylene production sources that are part of a major source. The 
requirements do not include a provision to exempt sources with a total 
annual benzene quantity less than 10 megagrams per year, or any similar 
cutoff, from control requirements.
    (b) The requirements for ethylene production sources apply to waste 
streams containing any of the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart, 
not only waste streams containing benzene.
    (c) The requirements for ethylene production sources do not include 
the compliance options at 40 CFR 61.342(c)(3)(ii), (d) and (e).

Applicability for Waste Requirements


Sec. 63.1093  Does this subpart apply to my waste streams?

    The waste stream provisions of this subpart apply to your waste 
streams if you own or operate an ethylene production facility expressly 
referenced to this subpart XX from 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.


Sec. 63.1094  What waste streams are exempt from the requirements of 
this subpart?

    The types of waste described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section are exempt from this subpart.
    (a) Waste in the form of gases or vapors that is emitted from 
process fluids.
    (b) Waste that is contained in a segregated storm water sewer 
system.

Waste Requirements


Sec. 63.1095  What specific requirements must I comply with?

    For waste containing the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart, you 
must

[[Page 76442]]

comply with all of the requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, as 
modified by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
    (a) Use the term ``HAP'' instead of ``benzene'' everywhere 
``benzene'' appears in 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, unless Table 2 to 
this subpart instructs an alternate substitution for a phrase 
containing ``benzene,'' as discussed in paragraph (b) of this section. 
For the purposes of the waste requirements of this subpart, HAP means 
any of the compounds listed in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (b) Apply the wording differences listed in Table 2 to this subpart 
as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Table 2 to this subpart gives a referenced section of 40 CFR 
part 61, subpart FF, and a phrase that appears in that section. Instead 
of the phrase in 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, use the phrase in the last 
column of Table 2 to this subpart to produce the requirements for 
ethylene production sources.
    (2) If a section of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, references another 
section of subpart FF, you must comply with the referenced section, 
except use the wording differences specified in Table 2 to this subpart 
to produce the requirements for ethylene production sources.
    (c) Table 3 to this subpart shows the sections of 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart FF, that are not included in the waste requirements of this 
subpart.


Sec. 63.1096  What requirements must I comply with if I transfer waste 
offsite?

    If you elect to transfer waste offsite, you must comply with the 
requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
    (a) Include a notice with the shipment or transport of each waste 
stream. The notice shall state that the waste stream contains organic 
HAP that are to be treated in accordance with the provisions of this 
subpart. When the transport is continuous or ongoing (for example, 
discharge to a publicly-owned treatment works), the notice shall be 
submitted to the treatment operator initially and whenever there is a 
change in the required treatment.
    (b) You may not transfer the waste stream unless the transferee has 
submitted to the EPA a written certification that the transferee will 
manage and treat any waste stream received from a source subject to the 
requirements of this subpart in accordance with the requirements of 
this subpart. The certifying entity may revoke the written 
certification by sending a written statement to the EPA and you giving 
at least 90 days notice that the certifying entity is rescinding 
acceptance of responsibility for compliance with the regulatory 
provisions listed in this paragraph (b). Upon expiration of the notice 
period, you may not transfer the waste stream to the treatment 
operation.
    (c) By providing this written certification to the EPA, the 
certifying entity accepts responsibility for compliance with the 
regulatory provisions in paragraph (b) of this section with respect to 
any shipment of waste covered by the written certification. Failure to 
abide by any of those provisions with respect to such shipments may 
result in enforcement action by the EPA against the certifying entity 
in accordance with the enforcement provisions applicable to violations 
of those provisions by owners or operators of sources.
    (d) Written certifications and revocation statements to the EPA 
from the transferees of waste shall be signed by the responsible 
official of the certifying entity, provide the name and address of the 
certifying entity, and be sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office 
at the addresses listed in 40 CFR 63.13. Such written certifications 
are not transferable by the treater.

Definitions for Waste Requirements


Sec. 63.1097  What definitions do I need to know?

    (a) Unless defined in paragraph (b) of this section, definitions 
for terms used in this subpart are provided in the Clean Air Act, 
Sec. 63.1103(e), or Sec. 61.341, except use the wording differences 
specified in Table 2 to this subpart to produce the definitions for 
ethylene production sources.
    (b) The following definitions apply to terms used in this subpart:
    Process wastewater means water which comes in contact with any of 
the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart during manufacturing or 
processing operations conducted within an ethylene manufacturing 
process unit. Process wastewater is not organic wastes, process fluids, 
product tank drawdown, cooling water blowdown, steam trap condensate, 
or landfill leachate. Process wastewater includes direct-contact 
cooling water.

Implementation and Enforcement


Sec. 63.1098  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA, or a 
delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, 
local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to 
implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional 
Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or 
tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of 
this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emissions standards 
in Secs. 63.1084, 63.1085 and 63.1095, under Sec. 63.6(g). Where these 
standards reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be 
delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced 
subpart.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.

TABLES TO SUBPART XX

            Table 1 to Subpart XX.--Hazardous Air Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  CAS
                  Hazardous air pollutant a                     number a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene......................................................      71432
1,3-Butadiene................................................     106990
Cumene.......................................................      98828
Ethyl benzene................................................     100414
Hexane.......................................................     110543
Naphthalene..................................................      91203
Styrene......................................................     100425
Toluene......................................................     108883
o-Xylene.....................................................      95476
m-Xylene.....................................................     108383
p-Xylene.....................................................    106423
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Includes all isomers of listed pollutant although isomers may have a
  different CAS number.


[[Page 76443]]


   Table 2 to Subpart XX.--Specific Differences in Requirements of This Subpart and 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart
              XX, in * * *                     Instead of the phrase:                 Use the phrase a:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  61.341............................  benzene.........................  any HAP.
Sec.  61.342(c).........................  at which the total annual         to which the wastewater requirements
                                           benzene quantity from facility    of this subpart XX apply.
                                           waste is equal to or greater
                                           than 10 Mg/yr as determined in
                                           paragraph (a) of this section.
Sec.  61.342(c)(1)......................  benzene.........................  any HAP.
Sec.  61.342(c)(2)......................  benzene concentration...........  total HAP concentration.
Sec.  61.342(c)(3)......................  either paragraph (c)(3)(i) or     paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
                                           (ii) of this section.
Sec.  61.348(a)(1)(i)...................  level...........................  total level.
Sec.  61.348(b)(2)(i)...................  benzene.........................  total HAP.
Sec.  61.349(a)(2)(i)(A)................  reduce the organic emissions      reduce the HAP or total organic
                                           vented to it by 95 weight         compound emissions vented to it by
                                           percent or greater.               98 weight percent or greater.
Sec.  61.349(a)(2)(ii)..................  recover or control the organic    recover or control the HAP or total
                                           emissions vented to it with an    organic compound emissions vented
                                           efficiency of 95 weight percent   to it with an efficiency of 98
                                           or greater, or shall recover or   weight percent or greater.
                                           control the benzene emissions
                                           vented to it with an efficiency
                                           of 98 weight percent or greater.
Sec.  61.349(a)(2)(iv)(A)...............  the device shall recover or       the device shall recover or control
                                           control the organic emissions     the HAP or total organic compound
                                           vented to it with an efficiency   emissions vented to it with an
                                           of 95 weight percent or           efficiency of 98 weight percent or
                                           greater, or shall recover or      greater.
                                           control the benzene emissions
                                           vented to it with an efficiency
                                           of 98 weight percent or greater.
Sec.  61.349(a)(2)(iv)(B)...............  the control device will achieve   the control device will achieve an
                                           an emission control efficiency    emission control efficiency of 98
                                           of either 95 percent or greater   percent or greater for HAP or total
                                           for organic compounds or 98       organic compounds.
                                           percent or greater for benzene.
Sec.  61.354(a)(1)......................  at least once per month by        continuously.
                                           collecting and analyzing one or
                                           more samples using the
                                           procedures specified in Sec.
                                           61.355(c)(3).
Sec.  61.354(c)(6)(i)...................  either the concentration level    the concentration level of the
                                           of the organic compounds or the   organic compounds.
                                           concentration level of benzene.
Sec.  61.354(c)(7)(i)...................  either the concentration level    the concentration level of the
                                           of the organic compounds or the   organic compounds.
                                           benzene concentration level.
Sec.  61.354(c)(8)......................  either the concentration level    the concentration level of the
                                           of the organic compounds or the   organic compounds.
                                           benzene concentration level.
Sec.  61.354(d).........................  either the concentration level    the concentration level of the
                                           of the organic compounds or the   organic compounds.
                                           concentration level of benzene.
Sec.  61.354(d).........................  either the organic concentration  the organic concentration.
                                           or the benzene concentration.
Sec.  61.355(c)(3)(v)...................  benzene.........................  total HAP.
Sec.  61.355(e)(3)......................  benzene.........................  total HAP.
Sec.  61.355(e)(4)......................  benzene.........................  total HAP.
Sec.  61.355(f)(3)......................  benzene.........................  total HAP.
Sec.  61.355(f)(4)(iii).................  C=Concentration of benzene......  C=Sum of concentrations of HAP
                                                                             measured in the exhaust, ppmv.
Sec.  61.355(f)(4)(iii).................  K=Conversion factor=3.24 kg/      K=Weighted average density of HAP at
                                           m\31\ for benzene.                standard conditions, kg/m\3\.
Sec.  61.355(g).........................  benzene concentration...........  total HAP concentration.
Sec.  61.355(i).........................  either the organic reduction      the HAP or total organic compound
                                           efficiency requirement or the     reduction efficiency specified
                                           benzene reduction efficiency      under Sec.  61.349(a)(2).
                                           requirement specified under
                                           Sec.  61.349(a)(2).
Sec.  61.355(i)(3)(iii).................  benzene concentration...........  concentration of HAP i.
Sec.  61.355(i)(3)(iii).................  molecular weight of benzene.....  molecular weight of HAP i.
Sec.  61.355(i)(3)(iii).................  number of organic compounds in    number of organic compounds or HAP
                                           the vent stream.                  in the vent stream.
Sec.  61.355(i)(4)......................  benzene.........................  total HAP.
Sec.  61.356(b)(1)......................  waste stream identification,      waste stream identification, whether
                                           water content, whether or not     or not the waste stream is a
                                           the waste stream is a process     process wastewater stream, range of
                                           wastewater stream, annual waste   HAP concentrations, and annual
                                           quantity, range of benzene        average flow-weighted HAP
                                           concentrations, annual average    concentrations.
                                           flow-weighted benzene
                                           concentration, and annual
                                           benzene quantity.
Sec.  61.356(j)(8)......................  organics or concentration of      organics.
                                           benzene.
Sec.  61.356(j)(8)......................  organics or the concentration of  organics.
                                           benzene.
Sec.  61.356(j)(9)......................  organics or the concentration of  organics.
                                           benzene.
Sec.  61.357(a).........................  within 90 days after January 7,   as part of the initial notification
                                           1993.                             report required in paragraph (c) of
                                                                             Sec.  63.1110.
Sec.  61.357(a).........................  Sec.  61.342....................  40 CFR part 63, subpart XX.
Sec.  61.357(a).........................  the report shall include the      the report shall include the
                                           following information:.           information in paragraphs (a)(2)
                                                                             and (a)(3) except (a)(3)(i) of this
                                                                             section.

[[Page 76444]]

 
Sec.  61.357(a)(3)(iii).................  Annual waste quantity for the     If the stream is managed or treated
                                           waste stream.                     in an exempt unit according to Sec.
                                                                              61.348(b), annual waste quantity
                                                                             for the waste stream.
Sec.  61.357(a)(4)......................  paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3).  paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) except
                                                                             (a)(3)(i) of this section.
Sec.  61.357(d).........................  if the total annual benzene       the owner or operator to which the
                                           quantity from facility waste is   wastewater requirements of 40 CFR
                                           equal to or greater than 10 Mg/   part 63, subpart XX apply.
                                           yr, then the owner or operator.
Sec.  61.357(d)(1)......................  within 90 days after January 7,   with the Notification of Compliance
                                           1993.                             Status report required by paragraph
                                                                             (d) of Sec.  63.1110.
Sec.  61.357(d)(2)......................  paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of  paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) except
                                           this section.                     (a)(3)(i) of this section.
Sec.  61.357(d)(7)(iii).................  concentration of benzene........  total concentration of HAP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a For the purpose of this table and the waste requirements of this subpart, HAP means any of the compounds
  listed in Table 1 to this subpart.


Table 3 to Subpart XX.--Sections of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF, That Are
            Not Included in the Requirements for This Subpart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Section                            Paragraphs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
61.340..............................  all.
61.342..............................  (a), (b), (c)(3)(ii), (d), (e),
                                       (f).
61.348..............................  (d)(3), (d)(4).
61.355..............................  (a), (j), (k).
61.356..............................  (b)(2)(ii),(b)(3) through (5).
61.357..............................  (a)(1), (a)(3)(i), (b), (c),
                                       (d)(3) through (5).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart SS--[Amended]

    3. Section 63.983 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii);
    b. Revising the heading for paragraph (b); and
    c. Adding paragraph (b)(4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec. 63.983  Closed vent systems.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Properly install, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that 
is capable of taking periodic readings. Records shall be generated as 
specified in Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(A). The flow indicator shall be 
installed at the entrance to any bypass line.
    (ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting position 
with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. Records shall be 
generated as specified in Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(B).
* * * * *
    (b) Closed vent system inspection and monitoring requirements. * * 
*
    (4) For each bypass line, the owner or operator shall comply with 
paragraph (b)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) If a flow indicator is used, take a reading at least once every 
15 minutes.
    (ii) If the bypass line valve is secured in the non-diverting 
position, visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least once 
every month to verify that the valve is maintained in the non-diverting 
position, and the vent stream is not diverted through the bypass line.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.992 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 63.992  Implementation and enforcement.

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA, or a 
delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, 
local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to 
implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional 
Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or 
tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of 
this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emissions standards 
in Secs. 63.983(a) and (d), 63.984, 63.685(a), 63.986(a), 63.987(a), 
63.988(a), 63.990(a), 63.993(a), 63.994(a), and 63.995(a) under 
Sec. 63.6(g). Where these standards reference another subpart, the 
cited provisions will be delegated according to the delegation 
provisions of the referenced subpart.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    5. Section 63.996 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(7) through 
(10) as follows:


Sec. 63.996  General monitoring requirements for control and recovery 
devices.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) For each CPMS, the owner or operator must meet the requirements 
in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period.
    (ii) To calculate a valid hourly average, there must be at least 
four equally spaced values for that hour, excluding data collected 
during the periods described in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
    (iii) Calculate a daily average using all of the valid hourly 
averages for each day.
    (8) For each temperature monitoring device, meet the requirements 
in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (viii) of this section.
    (i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a 
representative temperature.
    (ii) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor 
with a minimum tolerance of 2.2  deg.C or 0.75 percent of the 
temperature value, whichever is larger.
    (iii) For a cryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor 
with a minimum tolerance of 2.2  deg.C or 2

[[Page 76445]]

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger.
    (iv) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic 
interference and chemical contaminants.
    (v) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the 
minor division of at least 11  deg.C.
    (vi) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually 
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. 
Following the electronic calibration, conduct a temperature sensor 
validation check in which a second or redundant temperature sensor 
placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading 
within 16.7  deg.C of the process temperature sensor's reading.
    (vii) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor 
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature 
range or install a new temperature sensor.
    (viii) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and 
all electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic 
corrosion.
    (9) For each pressure measurement device, the owner or operator 
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (vii) of 
this section.
    (i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that 
provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
    (ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (iii) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or 
a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure 
range.
    (iv) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
    (v) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (vi) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (vii) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (10) For each pH measurement device, the owner or operator must 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(10)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of pH.
    (ii) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the 
fluid to be measured.
    (iii) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 
8 hours of process operation.
    (iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all 
electrical connections for continuity.
* * * * *
    6. Section 63.997 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii);
    b. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii) introductory text;
    c. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(D);
    d. Adding paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(E);
    e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iv) introductory text;
    f. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(B)(2) and (3); and
    g. Adding paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(F) through (K).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.997  Performance test and compliance assessment requirements 
for control devices.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Gas volumetric flow rate. The gas volumetric flow rate shall 
be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, as appropriate.
    (iii) Total organic regulated material or TOC concentration. To 
determine compliance with a parts per million by volume total organic 
regulated material or TOC limit, the owner or operator shall use Method 
18 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as applicable. Alternatively, 
any other method or data that have been validated according to the 
applicable procedures in Method 301 of appendix A to this part may be 
used. The procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A) through (E) 
of this section shall be used to calculate parts per million by volume 
concentration, corrected to 3 percent oxygen if a combustion device is 
the control device and supplemental combustion air is used to combust 
the emissions.
* * * * *
    (D) To measure the total organic regulated material concentration 
at the outlet of a combustion control device, use Method 18 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, or ASTM D6420-99 (incorporated by reference). For 
a combustion control device, you must first determine which regulated 
material compounds are present in the inlet gas stream using process 
knowledge or the screening procedure described in Method 18. In 
conducting the performance test, analyze samples collected at the 
outlet of the combustion control device as specified in Method 18 or 
ASTM D6420-99 for the regulated material compounds present at the inlet 
of the control device.
    (E) To measure the TOC concentration of the outlet vent stream, use 
Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, according to the procedures 
in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(E)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Calibrate the instrument on the predominant regulated material 
compound.
    (2) The test results are acceptable if the response from the high 
level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation for 
the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is 
zeroed on its most sensitive scale.
    (3) The span value of the analyzer must be less than 100 parts per 
million by volume.
    (4) Report the results as carbon, calculated according to Equation 
25A-1 of Method 25A.
    (iv) Percent reduction calculation. To determine compliance with a 
percent reduction requirement, the owner or operator shall use Method 
18, 25, or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as applicable. 
Alternatively, any other method or data that have been validated 
according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of appendix A to 
this part may be used. The procedures specified in paragraphs 
(e)(2)(iv)(A) through (K) of this section shall be used to calculate 
percent reduction efficiency.
* * * * *
    (F) To measure inlet and outlet concentrations of total organic 
regulated material, use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or 
ASTM D6420-99 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 63.14). 
In conducting the performance test, collect and analyze samples as 
specified in Method 18 or ASTM D6420-99. You must collect samples 
simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the control device. If the 
performance test is for a combustion control device, you must first 
determine which regulated material compounds are present in the inlet 
gas stream (i.e., uncontrolled emissions) using process knowledge or 
the screening procedure described in Method 18. Quantify the emissions 
for the regulated material compounds present in the inlet gas stream 
for both the inlet and outlet gas streams for the combustion device.
    (G) To determine inlet and outlet concentrations of TOC, use Method 
25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Measure the total gaseous non-methane 
organic (TGNMO) concentration of the inlet and outlet vent streams 
using the procedures

[[Page 76446]]

of Method 25. Use the TGNMO concentration in Equations 4 and 5 of 
paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
    (H) Method 25A may be used instead of Method 25 to measure inlet 
and outlet concentrations of TOC if the condition in either paragraph 
(e)(2)(iv)(H)(1) or (2) of this section is met.
    (1) The concentration at the inlet to the control system and the 
required level of control would result in exhaust TGNMO concentrations 
of 50 parts per million by volume or less.
    (2) Because of the high efficiency of the control device, the 
anticipated TGNMO concentration of the control device exhaust is 50 
parts per million by volume or less, regardless of the inlet 
concentration.
    (I) To measure hydrogen halide and halogen concentrations, use 
Method 26 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Use a minimum sampling time 
of 1 hour. Use Method 26A in lieu of Method 26 when measuring emissions 
at the outlet of a scrubber where the potential for mist carryover 
exists.
    (J) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device 
contains formaldehyde, you must conduct emissions testing according to 
paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(J)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If you elect to comply with a percent reduction requirement and 
formaldehyde is the principal regulated material compound (i.e., 
greater than 50 percent of the regulated material compounds in the 
stream by volume), you must use Method 316 or 320 of appendix A to this 
part to measure formaldehyde at the inlet and outlet of the control 
device. Use the percent reduction in formaldehyde as a surrogate for 
the percent reduction in total regulated material emissions.
    (2) If you elect to comply with an outlet total organic regulated 
material concentration or TOC concentration limit, and the uncontrolled 
or inlet gas stream to the control device contains greater than 10 
percent (by volume) formaldehyde, you must use Method 316 or 320 of 
appendix A to this part to separately determine the formaldehyde 
concentration. Calculate the total organic regulated material 
concentration or TOC concentration by totaling the formaldehyde 
emissions measured using Method 316 or 320 and the other regulated 
material compound emissions measured using Method 18 or 25/25A.
    (K) You may use ASTM D6420-99 (incorporated by reference as 
specified in Sec. 63.14) in lieu of Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, if a minimum of one sample/analysis cycle is completed at 
least every 15 minutes, and the condition in paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(K)(1) 
or (2) of this section is met.
    (1) The target compounds are listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99, and the target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by 
volume and 100 parts per million by volume.
    (2) The target compounds are not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM 
D6420-99, but are potentially detected by mass spectrometry. In this 
case, an additional system continuing calibration check after each run, 
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of ASTM D6420-99, must be followed, 
documented, and submitted with the performance test report even if you 
do not use a moisture condenser or the compound is not considered 
soluble.
* * * * *

Subpart TT--[Amended]

    7. Section 63.1000 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.1000  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) Implementation and enforcement. This subpart can be implemented 
and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated authority such as the 
applicable State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has 
delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that 
agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact 
the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is 
delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of 
this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (i) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emissions standards 
in Secs. 63.1003 through 63.1015, under Sec. 63.6(g). Where these 
standards reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be 
delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced 
subpart.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (iii) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (iv) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under 
Sec. 63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (v) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart UU--[Amended]

    8. Section 63.1019 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 63.1019  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (f) Implementation and enforcement. This subpart can be implemented 
and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated authority such as the 
applicable State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has 
delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that 
agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact 
the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is 
delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency.
    (g) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of 
this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emissions standards 
in Secs. 63.1022 through 62.1034, under Sec. 63.6(g), and the standards 
for quality improvement programs in Sec. 63.1035. Where these standards 
reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated 
according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.

Subpart WW--[Amended]

    9. Section 63.1067 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1067  Implementation and enforcement.

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA, or a 
delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, 
local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to 
implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional 
Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or 
tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to

[[Page 76447]]

a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this part, the 
authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section 
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the 
State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emissions standards 
in Secs. 63.1062 and 63.1063(a) and (b) for alternative means of 
emission limitation, under Sec. 63.6(g).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.

Subpart YY--[Amended]

    10. Section 63.1100 is amended by:
    a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a);
    b. Adding four entries in alphabetical order and two footnotes to 
Table 1;
    c. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(ii), (g)(2), and (g)(5) and
    d. Adding paragraph (g)(6).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1100  Applicability.

    (a) General. This subpart applies to source categories and affected 
sources specified in Sec. 63.1103(a) through (h). * * *
* * * * *

                                           Table 1 to Sec.  63.1100(a).--Source Category MACT a Applicability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        Source category
        Source category          Storage vessels   Process vents    Transfer racks  Equipment leaks     Wastewater         Other              MACT
                                                                                                         streams                          requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Carbon Black Production........  No.............  Yes............  No.............  No.............  No.............  No.............  Sec.  63.1103(f)
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing  Yes............  Yes............  Yes............  Yes............  Yes............  No.............  Sec.  63.1103(g)
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Ethylene Production............  Yes............  Yes............  Yes............  Yes............  Yes............  Yes c..........  Sec.  63.1103(e)
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
 
Spandex Production.............  Yes............  Yes............  No.............  No.............  No.............  Yes d..........  Sec.  63.1103(h)
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c Heat exchange systems as defined in Sec.  63.1103(e)(2).
d Fiber spinning lines.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102 for an 
affected source subject to this subpart, a storage vessel that is part 
of an existing source that must be controlled according to the storage 
vessel requirements of this subpart, and that must be controlled 
according to the storage vessel requirements of subpart Ka or Kb of 40 
CFR part 60 is required to comply only with the storage vessel 
requirements of this subpart.
    (2) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for process vents. 
(i) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102 for an 
affected source subject to this subpart, a process vent that is part of 
an existing source that must be controlled according to the process 
vent requirements of this subpart, and that must be controlled 
according to the process vent requirements of subpart G (the HON) of 
this part is in compliance with this subpart if it complies with either 
the process vent requirements of this subpart or subpart G of this 
part, and the owner or operator has notified the Administrator in the 
Notification of Compliance Status report required by 
Sec. 63.1110(a)(4).
    (ii) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102 for an 
affected source subject to this subpart, a process vent that is part of 
an existing source that must be controlled according to the process 
vent requirements of this subpart, and that must be controlled 
according to the process vent requirements of subpart RRR or NNN of 40 
CFR part 60 is required to comply only with the process vent 
requirements of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (5) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for wastewater for 
source categories other than ethylene production. (i) After the 
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102 for an affected source 
subject to this subpart, a wastewater stream that is subject to the 
wastewater requirements of this subpart and the wastewater requirements 
of subparts F and G of this part (the HON) shall be deemed to be in 
compliance with the requirements of this subpart if it complies with 
either set of requirements. In any instance where a source subject to 
this subpart is collocated with a Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) source, and a single wastewater 
treatment facility treats both Group 1 wastewaters and wastewater 
residuals from the source subject to this subpart and wastewaters from 
the SOCMI source, a certification by the treatment facility that they 
will manage and treat the waste in conformity with the specific control 
requirements set forth in Secs. 63.133 through 63.147 will also be 
deemed sufficient to satisfy the certification requirements for 
wastewater treatment under this subpart. This paragraph does not apply 
to the ethylene production source category.
    (ii) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1102 for an 
affected source subject to this subpart, a wastewater stream that is 
subject to control requirements in the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP 
(subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61) and this subpart is required to comply 
with both rules. This paragraph (g)(5)(ii) does not apply to the 
ethylene production source category.
    (6) Overlap of subpart YY with other regulations for waste for the 
ethylene production source category.
    (i) After the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.1102, a waste 
stream that is conveyed, stored, or treated in a

[[Page 76448]]

wastewater stream management unit, waste management unit, or wastewater 
treatment system that receives streams subject to both the control 
requirements of Sec. 63.1103(e)(2) for ethylene production sources and 
the provisions of Secs. 63.133 through 63.147 shall comply as specified 
in paragraphs (g)(6)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. Compliance with 
the provisions of this paragraph (g)(6)(i) shall constitute compliance 
with the requirements of this subpart for that waste stream.
    (A) Comply with the provisions in Secs. 63.133 through 63.137 and 
63.140 for all equipment used in the storage and conveyance of the 
waste stream.
    (B) Comply with the provisions in Secs. 63.1103(e), 63.138, and 
63.139 for the treatment and control of the waste stream.
    (C) Comply with the provisions in Secs. 63.143 through 63.148 for 
monitoring and inspections of equipment and for recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements. The owner or operator is not required to comply 
with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 
associated with the treatment and control requirements in Secs. 61.355 
through 61.357.
    (ii) After the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.1102, 
compliance with Sec. 63.1103(e) shall constitute compliance with the 
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP (subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61) for 
waste streams that are subject to both the control requirements of 
Sec. 63.1103(e)(2) for ethylene production sources and the control 
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF.
    11. Section 63.1101 is amended by:
    a. Adding a sentence at the end of the introductory text;
    b. Adding a sentence to the end of the definition of ``process 
vent;''
    c. Revising the definitions of ``shutdown'' and ``total organic 
compounds.''
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1101  Definitions.

    * * * The definitions in this section do not apply to waste 
requirements for ethylene production sources.
* * * * *
    Process vent * * * This definition does not apply to ethylene 
production sources. Ethylene manufacturing process vents are defined in 
Sec. 63.1103(e)(2).
* * * * *
    Shutdown means the cessation of operation of a regulated source and 
equipment required or used to comply with this subpart, or the emptying 
and degassing of a storage vessel. For the purposes of this subpart, 
shutdown includes, but is not limited to, periodic maintenance, 
replacement of equipment, or repair. Shutdown does not include the 
routine rinsing or washing of equipment in batch operation between 
batches. Shutdown includes the decoking of ethylene manufacturing 
process unit furnaces.
* * * * *
    Total organic compounds or (TOC) means the total gaseous organic 
compounds (minus methane and ethane) in a vent stream, with the 
concentrations expressed on a carbon basis.
* * * * *
    12. Section 63.1102 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1102  Compliance Schedule.

    (a) General requirements. Affected sources, as defined in 
Sec. 63.1103(a)(1)(i) for acetyl resins production; 
Sec. 63.1103(b)(1)(i) for acrylic and monacrylic fiber production; 
Sec. 63.1103(c)(1)(i) for hydrogen fluoride production; 
Sec. 63.1103(d)(1)(i) for polycarbonate production; 
Sec. 63.1103(e)(1)(i) for ethylene production; Sec. 63.1103(f)(1)(i) 
for carbon black production; Sec. 63.1103(g)(1)(i) for cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing; or Sec. 63.1103(h)(1)(i) for spandex 
production shall comply with the appropriate provisions of this subpart 
and the subparts referenced by this subpart according to the schedule 
in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate. Proposal 
and effective dates are specified in Table 1 to this section.
    (1) Compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources. (i) The 
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected source that 
commences construction or reconstruction after the proposal date, and 
that has an initial startup before the effective date of standards for 
an affected source, shall comply with this subpart no later than the 
applicable effective date in Table 1 to this section.
    (ii) The owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected 
source that has an initial startup after the applicable effective date 
in Table 1 to Sec. 63.1102 shall comply with this subpart upon startup 
of the source.
    (iii) The owner or operator of an affected source that commences 
construction or reconstruction after the proposal date, but before the 
effective date in Table 1 to Sec. 63.1102, shall comply with this 
subpart no later than the date 3 years after the effective date if the 
conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section are 
met.
    (A) The promulgated standards are more stringent than the proposed 
standards.
    (B) The owner or operator complies with this subpart as proposed 
during the 3-year period immediately after the effective date of 
standards for the affected source.
    (2) Compliance dates for existing sources. (i) The owner or 
operator of an existing affected source shall comply with the 
requirements of this subpart within 3 years after the effective date of 
standards for the affected source.
    (ii) The owner or operator of an area source that increases its 
emissions of (or its potential to emit) HAP such that the source 
becomes a major source shall be subject to the relevant standards for 
existing sources under this subpart. Such sources shall comply with the 
relevant standards within 3 years of becoming a major source.

 Table 1 to Sec.  63.1102.--Source Category Proposal and Effective Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category             Proposal date      Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Acetal Resins Production.....  October 14, 1998..  June 29, 1999.
2. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers  October 14, 1998..  June 29, 1999.
 Production.
3. Hydrogen Fluoride Production.  October 14, 1998..  June 29, 1999.
4. Polycarbonate Production.....  October 14, 1998..  June 29, 1999.
5. Ethylene Production..........  December 6, 2000..  [DATE OF
                                                       PUBLICATION OF
                                                       THE FINAL SUBPART
                                                       IN THE FEDERAL
                                                       REGISTER].
6. Carbon Black Production......  December 6, 2000..  [DATE OF
                                                       PUBLICATION OF
                                                       THE FINAL SUBPART
                                                       IN THE FEDERAL
                                                       REGISTER].
7. Cyanide Chemicals              December 6, 2000..  [DATE OF
 Manufacturing.                                        PUBLICATION OF
                                                       THE FINAL SUBPART
                                                       IN THE FEDERAL
                                                       REGISTER].

[[Page 76449]]

 
8. Spandex Production...........  December 6, 2000..  [DATE OF
                                                       PUBLICATION OF
                                                       THE FINAL SUBPART
                                                       IN THE FEDERAL
                                                       REGISTER].
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    13. Section 63.1103 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) through 
(h), and adding Tables 7 through 10 as follows:


Sec. 63.1103  Source category-specific applicability, definitions, and 
requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) Ethylene production applicability, definitions, and 
requirements--(1) Applicability.--(i) Affected source. For the ethylene 
production (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section) source 
category, the affected source shall comprise all emission points listed 
in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) through (F) of this section that are 
associated with an ethylene manufacturing process unit located at a 
major source, as defined in section 112(a) of the Act.
    (A) All storage vessels (as defined in Sec. 63.1101) that store 
liquids containing organic HAP.
    (B) All process vents (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this 
section) from continuous unit operations.
    (C) All transfer racks (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this 
section) that load HAP-containing material.
    (D) Equipment (as defined in Sec. 63.1101) that contains or 
contacts organic HAP.
    (E) All waste streams (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this 
section) associated with the ethylene production process.
    (F) All heat exchange systems (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of 
this section) associated with the ethylene production process.
    (ii) Exceptions. The emission points listed in paragraphs 
(e)(1)(ii)(A) through (I) of this section are in the ethylene 
production source category but are not subject to the requirements of 
paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
    (A) Equipment that is located within an ethylene manufacturing 
process unit that is subject to this subpart but does not contain 
organic HAP.
    (B) Stormwater from segregated sewers.
    (C) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems in segregated 
sewers.
    (D) Spills.
    (E) Water from safety showers.
    (F) Water from testing of deluge systems.
    (G) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain organic HAP as 
impurities.
    (H) Transfer racks, loading arms, or loading hoses that only 
transfer liquids containing organic HAP as impurities.
    (I) Transfer racks, loading arms, or loading hoses that vapor 
balance during all transfer operations.
    (iii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for affected 
sources as defined in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section is specified 
in Sec. 63.1102.
    (2) Definitions. Ethylene manufacturing process vent means a gas 
stream containing greater than 0.005 weight-percent and 20 parts per 
million by volume HAP that is continuously discharged during operation 
of an ethylene manufacturing process unit, as defined in this section. 
Ethylene manufacturing process vents are gas streams that are 
discharged to the atmosphere (or the point of entry into a control 
device, if any) either directly or after passing through one or more 
recovery devices. Ethylene manufacturing process vents do not include 
relief valve discharges; gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas system; 
leaks from equipment regulated under this subpart; episodic or 
nonroutine releases such as those associated with startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction; and in situ sampling systems (online analyzers).
    Ethylene manufacturing process unit means a process unit that is 
specifically utilized for the production of ethylene/propylene, 
including all separation and purification processes.
    Ethylene production means the process by which ethylene/propylene 
is produced as a product or an intermediate by either a pyrolysis 
process (hydrocarbons subjected to high temperatures in the presence of 
steam) or separation from a petroleum refining stream. The ethylene 
production process includes the separation of ethylene/propylene from 
associated streams such as products made from compounds composed of 
four carbon atoms (C4), pyrolysis gasoline, and pyrolysis fuel oil. The 
ethylene production process does not include the manufacture of 
synthetic organic chemicals such as the production of butadiene from 
the C4 stream and aromatics from pyrolysis gasoline.
    Heat exchange system means any cooling tower system or once-through 
cooling water system (e.g., river or pond water). A heat exchange 
system can include an entire recirculating or once-through cooling 
system.
    Transfer rack means the collection of loading arms and loading 
hoses, at a single loading rack, that are associated with an ethylene 
manufacturing process unit subject to this subpart and are used to fill 
tank trucks and/or railcars with organic HAP. Transfer rack includes 
the associated pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other 
piping and valves. Transfer rack does not include racks, arms, or hoses 
that contain organic HAP only as impurities; or racks, arms, or hoses 
that vapor balance during all loading operations.
    Waste means any material resulting from industrial, commercial, 
mining, or agricultural operations, or from community activities, that 
is discarded or is being accumulated, stored, or physically, 
chemically, thermally, or biologically treated prior to being 
discarded, recycled, or discharged.
    Waste stream means the waste generated by a particular process 
unit, product tank, or waste management unit. The characteristics of 
the waste stream (e.g., flow rate, HAP concentration, water content) 
are determined at the point of waste generation. Examples of a waste 
stream include process wastewater, product tank drawdown, sludge and 
slop oil removed from waste management units, and landfill leachate.
    (3) Requirements. Table 7 to this section specifies the ethylene 
production source category requirements for new and existing sources. 
The owner or operator must control organic HAP emissions from each 
affected source emission point by meeting the applicable requirements 
specified in Table 7 to Sec. 63.1103. An owner or operator must perform 
the applicability assessment procedures and methods for process vents 
specified in Sec. 63.1104, excluding paragraphs (d), (g), (h), (i), 
(j), (l)(1), and (n). An owner or operator must perform the 
applicability assessment procedures and methods for equipment leaks 
specified in Sec. 63.1107. General compliance, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements are specified in Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1112. 
Minimization of emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunctions must 
be addressed in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by 
Sec. 63.1111; the plan must also establish reporting

[[Page 76450]]

and recordkeeping of such events. Procedures for approval of alternate 
means of emission limitations are specified in Sec. 63.1113.

 Table 7 to Sec.  63.1103.--What Are My Requirements if I Own or Operate
         an Ethylene Production Existing or New Affected Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If you own or operate * * *    And if * * *      Then you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A storage vessel (as       The maximum      a. Fill the vessel
 defined in Sec.  63.1101)     true vapor       through a submerged
 that stores liquid            pressure of      pipe; or
 containing organic HAP.       total organic   b. Comply with the
                               HAP is 3.4           vessels with capacities
                               kilopascals      95 cubic
                               but 76.6         meters.
                               kilopascals
                               and
                              the capacity of
                               the vessel is
                               4
                               cubic meters
                               but 95 cubic
                               meters.
2. A storage vessel (as       The maximum      a. Comply with the
 defined in Sec.  63.1101)     true vapor       requirements of subpart
 that stores liquid            pressure of      WW of this part; or
 containing organic HAP.       total organic   b. Reduce emissions of
                               HAP is 3.4           weight-percent by
                               kilopascals      venting emissions
                               but 76.6         through a closed vent
                               kilopascals;     system to any
                               and              combination of control
                              the capacity of   devices meeting the
                               the vessel is    requirements of subpart
                               95    SS of this part, as
                               cubic meters.    specified in Sec.
                                                63.982(a)(1).
3. A storage vessel (as       The maximum      Reduce emissions of total
 defined in Sec.  63.1101)     true vapor       organic HAP by 98 weight-
 that stores liquid            pressure of      percent by venting
 containing organic HAP.       total organic    emissions through a
                               HAP is 76.6          any combination of
                               kilopascals.     control devices meeting
                                                the requirements of
                                                subpart SS of this part,
                                                as specified in Sec.
                                                63.982(a)(1).
4. A process vent (as         The vent stream  Reduce emissions of
 defined in paragraph (e)(2)   has an average   organic HAP by 98 weight-
 of this section) from         flow rate  0.011    organic HAP or TOC to a
                               scmm; and        concentration of 20
                              the vent stream   parts per million by
                               has a total      volume; whichever is
                               organic HAP      less stringent, by
                               concentration    venting emissions
                               50    through a closed vent
                               parts per        system to any
                               million by       combination of control
                               volume.          devices meeting the
                                                requirements of subpart
                                                SS of this part, as
                                                specified in Sec.
                                                63.982(a)(2).
5. A transfer rack (as        Materials        a. Reduce emissions of
 defined in paragraph (e)(2)   loaded have a    organic HAP by 98 weight-
 of this section).             true vapor       percent; or reduce
                               pressure of      organic HAP or TOC to a
                               total organic    concentration of 20
                               HAP 3.4           volume; whichever is
                               kilopascals;     less stringent, by
                               and              venting emissions
                               76    through a closed vent
                               cubic meters     system to any
                               per day          combination of control
                               (averaged over   devices as specified in
                               any              Sec.  63.1105; or
                               consecutive 30- process piping designed
                               day period) of   to collect the HAP-
                               HAP-containing   containing vapors
                               material is      displaced from tank
                               loaded.          trucks or railcars
                                                during loading and to
                                                route it to a process, a
                                                fuel gas system, or a
                                                vapor balance system, as
                                                specified in Sec.
                                                63.1105.
6. Equipment (as defined in   The equipment    Comply with the
 Sec.  63.1101) that           contains or      requirements of subpart
 contains or contacts          contacts 5
                               weight-percent
                               organic HAP;
                               and
                              the equipment
                               is in service
                               300
                               hours per
                               year; and.
                              the equipment
                               is not in
                               vacuum service.
7. Processes that generate    The wastewater   Comply with the waste
 process wastewater or         contains any     requirements of subpart
 maintenance wastewater (as    of the           XX of this part. For
 defined in paragraph (e)(2)   following HAP:   ethylene manufacturing
 of this section).             Benzene,         process unit waste
                               cumene, ethyl    stream requirements,
                               benzene,         words have the meanings
                               hexane, methyl   specified in subpart XX.
                               ethyl ketone,
                               naphthalene,
                               phenol,
                               styrene,
                               toluene, o-
                               xylene, m-
                               xylene, p-
                               xylene, or 1,3-
                               butadiene.
8. A heat exchange system     ...............  Comply with the heat
 (as defined in paragraph                       exchange system
 (e)(2) of this section).                       requirements of subpart
                                                XX of this part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) Carbon black production applicability, definitions, and 
requirements--(1) Applicability--(i) Affected source. For the carbon 
black production source category (as defined in paragraph (f)(2) of 
this section), the affected source shall include each carbon black 
production process unit located at a major source, as defined in 
section 112(a) of the Act. The affected source shall also include all 
waste management units, maintenance wastewater, and equipment 
components that contain or contact HAP that are associated with the 
carbon black production process unit.
    (ii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for the carbon 
black production affected source, as defined in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of 
this section, is specified in Sec. 63.1102.
    (2) Definitions.
    Carbon black production means the production of carbon black by 
either the furnace, thermal, acetylene, or lampblack processes.
    Carbon black production process unit means the equipment assembled 
and connected by hard-piping or duct work

[[Page 76451]]

to process raw materials to manufacture, store, and transport a carbon 
black product. For the purposes of this subpart, a carbon black 
production process unit includes reactors and associated operations; 
associated recovery devices; and any feed, intermediate and product 
storage vessels, product transfer racks, and connected ducts and 
piping. A carbon black production process unit includes pumps, 
compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling connection 
systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, 
instrumentation systems, and control devices or systems.
    Dryer means a rotary-kiln dryer that is heated externally and is 
used to dry wet pellets in the wet pelletization process.
    Main unit filter means the filter that separates the carbon black 
from the tailgas.
    Miscellaneous process vents means all process vents associated with 
a carbon black production process unit other than the main unit filter, 
process filter, purge filter, and dryer process vents.
    Process filter means the filter that separates the carbon black 
from the conveying air.
    Purge filter means the filter that separates the carbon black from 
the dryer exhaust.
    (3) Requirements. Table 8 of this section specifies the carbon 
black production standards for existing and new sources. Applicability 
assessment procedures and methods are specified in Sec. 63.1104. An 
owner or operator of an affected source is not required to perform 
applicability tests, or other applicability assessment procedures if 
they opt to comply with the most stringent requirements for an 
applicable emission point pursuant to this subpart. General compliance, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are specified in 
Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1112. Procedures for approval of alternative 
means of emission limitations are specified in Sec. 63.1113.

 Table 8 to Sec.  63.1103.--What Are My Requirements If I Own or Operate
       a Carbon Black Production Existing or New Affected Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If you own or operate * * *    And if * * *      Then you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A main unit filter process    The HAP          a. Reduce emissions of
 vent.                         concentration    total HAP by using a
                               of the           flare meeting the
                               emission         requirements of subpart
                               stream is        SS of this part; or
                               equal to or     b. Reduce emissions of
                               greater than     total HAP by 98 weight-
                               260 parts per    percent or to a
                               million by       concentration of 20
                               volume a.        parts per million by
                                                volume, whichever is
                                                less stringent, by
                                                venting emissions
                                                through a closed vent
                                                system to any
                                                combination of control
                                                devices meeting the
                                                requirements of subpart
                                                SS of this part, as
                                                specified in Sec.
                                                63.982(a)(2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The weight-percent organic HAP is determined according to the
  procedures specified in Sec.  63.1104(e).

    (g) Cyanide chemicals manufacturing applicability, definitions, and 
requirements--(1) Applicability--(i) Affected source. For the cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing source category, the affected source shall 
include each cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit located at a 
major source, as defined in section 112(a) of the Act. The affected 
source shall also include all waste management units, maintenance 
wastewater, and equipment (as defined in Sec. 63.1101) that contain or 
contact cyanide chemicals that are associated with the cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing process unit.
    (ii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for the affected 
source, as defined in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, is specified 
in Sec. 63.1102.
    (2) Definitions.
    Andrussow process unit means a process unit that produces hydrogen 
cyanide by reacting methane and ammonia in the presence of oxygen over 
a platinum/rhodium catalyst. An Andrussow process unit begins at the 
point at which the raw materials are stored and ends at the point at 
which refined hydrogen cyanide is utilized as a raw material in a 
downstream process or is shipped offsite. If raw hydrogen cyanide is 
reacted with sodium hydroxide to form sodium cyanide, prior to the 
refining process, the unit operation where sodium cyanide is formed is 
considered to be part of the Andrussow process unit.
    Blausaure Methane Anlage (BMA) process unit means a process unit 
that produces hydrogen cyanide by reacting methane and ammonia over a 
platinum catalyst. A BMA process unit begins at the point at which raw 
materials are stored and ends at the point at which refined hydrogen 
cyanide is used as a raw material in a downstream process or is shipped 
offsite. If raw hydrogen cyanide is reacted with sodium hydroxide to 
form sodium cyanide, prior to the refining process, the unit operation 
where sodium cyanide is formed is considered to be part of the BMA 
process unit.
    Byproduct means a chemical that is produced coincidentally during 
the production of another chemical.
    Cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit or CCMPU means the 
equipment assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct work to 
process raw materials to manufacture, store, and transport a cyanide 
chemicals product. A cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit may 
be any one of the following: an Andrussow process unit, a BMA process 
unit, a sodium cyanide process unit, or a Sohio hydrogen cyanide 
process unit. For the purpose of this subpart, a cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing process unit includes reactors and associated unit 
operations; associated recovery devices; and any feed, intermediate and 
product storage vessels, product transfer racks, and connected ducts 
and piping. A cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit includes 
pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling 
connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, 
instrumentation systems, and control devices or systems.
    Cyanide chemicals product means either hydrogen cyanide or sodium 
cyanide.
    Dry-end process vent means a process vent originating from the drum 
filter or any other unit operation in the dry end of a sodium cyanide 
manufacturing process unit. For the purposes of this subpart, the dry 
end of the sodium cyanide process unit begins in the unit

[[Page 76452]]

operation where water is removed from the sodium cyanide, usually in 
the drum filter, and ends when the sodium cyanide is used as a raw 
material in a downstream process, or is shipped offsite.
    Raw hydrogen cyanide means hydrogen cyanide that has not been 
through the refining process. Raw hydrogen cyanide usually has a 
hydrogen cyanide concentration less than 10 percent.
    Refined hydrogen cyanide means hydrogen cyanide that has been 
through the refining process. Refined hydrogen cyanide usually has a 
hydrogen cyanide concentration greater than 99 percent.
    Refining process means the collection of equipment in a cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing processing unit used to concentrate raw 
hydrogen cyanide from a concentration less than 10 percent to refined 
hydrogen cyanide at a concentration greater than 99 percent.
    Sodium cyanide process unit means a process unit that produces 
sodium cyanide by reacting hydrogen cyanide and sodium hydroxide via 
the neutralization, or wet, process. A sodium cyanide process unit 
begins at the unit operation where refined hydrogen cyanide is reacted 
with sodium hydroxide and ends at the point the solid sodium cyanide 
product is shipped offsite or used as a raw material in a downstream 
process. If raw hydrogen cyanide is reacted with sodium hydroxide to 
form sodium cyanide prior to the refining process, the unit operation 
where sodium cyanide is formed is not considered to be part of the 
sodium cyanide process unit. For this type of process, the sodium 
cyanide process unit begins at the point that the aqueous sodium 
cyanide stream leaves the unit operation where the sodium cyanide is 
formed.
    Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit means a process unit that 
produces hydrogen cyanide as a byproduct of the acrylonitrile 
production process when acrylonitrile is manufactured using the Sohio 
process. A Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit begins at the point the 
hydrogen cyanide leaves the unit operation where the hydrogen cyanide 
is separated from the acrylonitrile (usually referred to as the light 
ends column). The Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit ends at the point 
refined hydrogen cyanide is used as a raw material in a downstream 
process or is shipped offsite. If raw hydrogen cyanide is reacted with 
sodium hydroxide to form sodium cyanide, prior to the refining process, 
the unit operation where sodium cyanide is formed is considered to be 
part of the Sohio hydrogen cyanide process unit.
    Wet-end process vent means a process vent originating from the 
reactor, crystallizer, or any other unit operation in the wet end of 
the sodium cyanide process unit. For the purposes of this subpart, the 
wet end of the sodium cyanide process unit begins at the point at which 
the raw materials are stored and ends just prior to the unit operation 
where water is removed from the sodium cyanide, usually in the drum 
filter.
    (3) Requirements. Table 9 of this section specifies the cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing standards applicable to existing and new 
sources. Applicability assessment procedures and methods are specified 
in Sec. 63.1104. An owner or operator of an affected source is not 
required to perform applicability tests, or other applicability 
assessment procedures if they opt to comply with the most stringent 
requirements for an applicable emission point pursuant to this subpart. 
General compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are 
specified in Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1112. Procedures for approval of 
alternative means of emission limitations are specified in 
Sec. 63.1113.
    (4) Determination of overall HAP emissions reductions for a process 
unit. (i) The owner or operator shall determine the overall HAP 
emissions reductions for process vents in a process unit using Equation 
1 of this section. The overall organic HAP emissions reductions shall 
be determined for all process vents in the process unit.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE00.000


Where:

REDCCMPU = Overall HAP emission reduction for the group of 
process vents in the CCMPU, percent.
Eunc,i = Uncontrolled HAP emissions from process vent i that 
is controlled by using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device, kg/
hr.
n = Number of process vents in the process unit that are controlled by 
using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device.
Ri = Control efficiency of the combustion, recovery, or 
recapture device used to control HAP emissions from vent i, determined 
in accordance with paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section.
Eunc,j = Uncontrolled HAP emissions from process vent j that 
is not controlled by using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device, 
kg/hr.
m = Number of process vents in the process unit that are not controlled 
by using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device.

    (ii) The control efficiency, Ri, shall be assigned as 
specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) If the process vent is controlled using a flare in accordance 
with the provisions of Sec. 63.987, or a combustion device in 
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 63.988(b)(2), for which a 
performance test has not been conducted, the control efficiency shall 
be assumed to be 98 percent.
    (B) If the process vent is controlled using a combustion, recovery, 
or recapture device for which a performance test has been conducted in 
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 63.997, the control efficiency 
shall be the efficiency determined from the performance test.

[[Page 76453]]



 Table 9 to Sec.  63.1103.--What Are My Requirements if I Own or Operate
   a Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Existing or New Affected Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If you own or operate * * *    And if * * *      Then you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A storage vessel.........  The storage      a. Reduce emissions of
                               vessel           hydrogen cyanide by
                               contains         using a flare meeting
                               refined          the requirements of Sec.
                               hydrogen          63.982(b); or
                               cyanide.        b. Reduce emissions of
                                                hydrogen cyanide by 98
                                                weight-percent by
                                                venting emissions
                                                through a closed vent
                                                system to any
                                                combination of control
                                                devices meeting the
                                                requirements of Sec.
                                                63.982(c)(1) or (d).
2. One or more process vents  ...............  During all periods,
 from continuous unit                           except periods of
 operations in an Andrussow                     startup, shutdown, and
 or BMA process unit.                           malfunction, either:
                                               a. Reduce overall
                                                emissions of total HAP
                                                from the collection of
                                                process vents from
                                                continuous unit
                                                operations in the
                                                process unit by 99
                                                weight-percent in
                                                accordance with
                                                paragraph (g)(4) of this
                                                section. Any control
                                                device used to reduce
                                                emissions from one or
                                                more process vents from
                                                continuous unit
                                                operations in the
                                                process unit must meet
                                                the applicable
                                                requirements of Sec.
                                                63.982(a)(2); or
                                               b. Reduce emissions of
                                                total HAP from each
                                                process vent from a
                                                continuous unit
                                                operation in the process
                                                unit by 99 weight-
                                                percent or a
                                                concentration of 20
                                                parts per million by
                                                volume, by venting
                                                emissions through a
                                                closed vent system to
                                                any combination of
                                                control devices meeting
                                                the requirements of Sec.
                                                 63.982(c)(2) or (d).
3. One or more process vents  ...............  During periods of
 from continuous unit                           startup, shutdown, and
 operations in an Andrussow                     malfunction, either:
 or BMA process unit.                          a. Reduce emissions of
                                                total HAP from each
                                                process vent from a
                                                continuous unit
                                                operation in the process
                                                unit by using a flare
                                                meeting the requirements
                                                of Sec.  63.982(b); or
                                               b. Reduce emissions of
                                                total HAP from each
                                                process vent from a
                                                continuous unit
                                                operation in the process
                                                unit by 98 weight-
                                                percent or a
                                                concentration of 20
                                                parts per million by
                                                volume, by venting
                                                emissions through a
                                                closed vent system to
                                                any combination of
                                                control devices meeting
                                                the requirements of Sec.
                                                 63.982(c)(2) or (d).
4. One or more process vents  ...............  a. Reduce overall
 from continuous unit                           emissions of hydrogen
 operations in a Sohio                          cyanide from the
 hydrogen cyanide process                       collection of process
 unit.                                          vents from continuous
                                                unit operations in the
                                                process unit by 98
                                                weight-percent in
                                                accordance with
                                                paragraph (g)(4) of this
                                                section. Any control
                                                device used to reduce
                                                emissions from one or
                                                more process vents from
                                                continuous unit
                                                operations in the
                                                process unit must meet
                                                the applicable
                                                requirements specified
                                                in Sec.  63.982(a)(2);
                                                or
                                               b. Reduce emissions of
                                                hydrogen cyanide from
                                                each process vent from a
                                                continuous unit
                                                operation in the process
                                                unit by using a flare
                                                meeting the requirements
                                                of Sec.  63.982(b); or
                                               c. Reduce emissions of
                                                hydrogen cyanide from
                                                each process vent from a
                                                continuous unit
                                                operation in the process
                                                unit by 98 weight-
                                                percent or a
                                                concentration of 20
                                                parts per million by
                                                volume, by venting
                                                emissions through a
                                                closed vent system to
                                                any combination of
                                                control devices meeting
                                                the requirements of Sec.
                                                 63.982(c)(2) or (d).

[[Page 76454]]

 
5. One or more wet-end        ...............  a. Reduce overall
 process vents, as defined                      emissions of total HAP
 in paragraph (g)(2) of this                    from the collection of
 section, in a sodium                           process vents from
 cyanide process unit.                          continuous unit
                                                operations in the
                                                process unit by 98
                                                weight-percent in
                                                accordance with
                                                paragraph (g)(4) of this
                                                section. Any control
                                                device used to reduce
                                                emissions from one or
                                                more process vents from
                                                continuous unit
                                                operations in the
                                                process unit must meet
                                                the applicable
                                                requirements Sec.
                                                63.982(a)(2); or
                                               b. Reduce emissions of
                                                total HAP from each wet-
                                                end process vent in the
                                                process unit by using a
                                                flare meeting the
                                                requirements of Sec.
                                                63.982(b); or
                                               c. Reduce emissions of
                                                total HAP from each wet-
                                                end process vent in the
                                                process unit by 98
                                                weight-percent or a
                                                concentration of 20
                                                parts per million by
                                                volume, by venting
                                                emissions through a
                                                closed vent system to
                                                any combination of
                                                control devices meeting
                                                the requirements of Sec.
                                                 63.982(c)(2) or (d).
6. One or more dry-end        ...............  a. Reduce overall
 process vents, as defined                      emissions of sodium
 in paragraph (g)(2) of this                    cyanide from the
 section, in a sodium                           collection of process
 cyanide process unit.                          vents from continuous
                                                unit operations in the
                                                process unit by 98
                                                weight-percent in
                                                accordance with
                                                paragraph (g)(4) of this
                                                section. Any control
                                                device used to reduce
                                                emissions from one or
                                                more process vents from
                                                continuous unit
                                                operations in the
                                                process unit must meet
                                                the applicable
                                                requirements of Sec.
                                                63.982(a)(2); or
                                               b. Reduce emissions of
                                                sodium cyanide from each
                                                dry-end process vent in
                                                the process unit by 98
                                                weight-percent by
                                                venting emissions
                                                through a closed vent
                                                system to any
                                                combination of control
                                                devices meeting the
                                                requirements of Sec.
                                                63.982(c)(2) or (d).
7. A transfer rack..........  The transfer     a. Reduce emissions of
                               rack is used     hydrogen cyanide by
                               to load          using a flare meeting
                               refined          the requirements of Sec.
                               hydrogen          63.982(b); or
                               cyanide into    b. Reduce emissions of
                               tank trucks      hydrogen cyanide by 98
                               and/or rail      weight-percent or a
                               cars.            concentration of 20
                                                parts per million by
                                                volume, whichever is
                                                less stringent, by
                                                venting emissions
                                                through a closed vent
                                                system to any
                                                combination of control
                                                devices meeting the
                                                requirements specified
                                                in Sec.  63.982(c)(1),
                                                (c)(2), or (d).
8. A new cyanide chemicals    The process      Achieve a combined
 manufacturing process unit    wastewater is    removal and control of
 that generates process        from HCN         HAP from the wastewater
 wastewater.                   purification,    of 93 weight-percent.
                               ammonia
                               purification,
                               or flare
                               blowdown.
9. A cyanide chemicals        The maintenance  Comply with the
 manufacturing process unit    wastewater       requirements of Sec.
 that generates maintenance    contains         63.1106(b).
 wastewater.                   hydrogen
                               cyanide or
                               acetonitrile.
10. An item of equipment      The item of      Comply with the
 listed in Sec.                equipment        requirements in Table 35
 63.1106(c)(1).                meets the        of subpart G of this
                               criteria         part.
                               specified in
                               Sec.  63.1106(
                               c)(1) through
                               (3) and either
                               (c)(4)(i) or
                               (ii)..
11. Equipment, as defined     The equipment    Comply with either
 under Sec.  63.1101.          contains or      subpart TT or UU of this
                               contacts         part, with the exception
                               hydrogen         that open-ended lines
                               cyanide and      that contain or contact
                               operates equal   hydrogen cyanide are not
                               to or greater    to be capped.
                               than 300 hours
                               per year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (h) Spandex production applicability, definitions, and 
requirements--(1) Applicability--(i) Affected source. For the spandex 
production (as defined in paragraph (h)(2) of this section) source 
category, the affected source shall comprise all emission points listed 
in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section that are 
associated with a reaction spinning spandex production process unit 
located at a major source, as defined in section 112(a) of the Act.
    (A) All process vents (as defined in Sec. 63.1101).
    (B) All storage vessels (as defined in Sec. 63.1101) that store 
liquids containing organic HAP.
    (C) All spandex fiber spinning lines using a spinning solution 
having organic HAP.
    (ii) Exceptions. The emission points listed in paragraphs 
(h)(1)(ii)(A) and (B)

[[Page 76455]]

of this section are in the spandex production source category but are 
not subject to the requirements of paragraph (h)(3) of this section.
    (A) Equipment that is located within a spandex production process 
unit that is subject to this subpart but does not contain organic HAP.
    (B) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain organic HAP as 
impurities.
    (iii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for affected 
sources, as defined in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section, is 
specified in paragraph (b) of Sec. 63.1102.
    (2) Definitions.
    Spandex or Spandex fiber means a manufactured synthetic fiber in 
which the fiber-forming substance is a long-chain polymer comprised of 
at least 85 percent by mass of a segmented polyurethane.
    Spandex production means the production of synthetic spandex 
fibers.
    Spandex production process unit means a process unit that is 
specifically used for the production of synthetic spandex fibers.
    Fiber spinning line means the group of equipment and process vents 
associated with spandex fiber spinning operations. The fiber spinning 
line includes the blending and dissolving tanks, spinning solution 
filters, spinning units, spin bath tanks, and the equipment used 
downstream of the spin bath to wash, draw, or dry on the wet belt the 
spun fiber.
    (3) Requirements. Table 10 to this section specifies the spandex 
production source category requirements for new and existing sources. 
An owner or operator must perform the applicability assessment 
procedures and methods for process vents specified in Sec. 63.1104, 
excluding paragraphs (b)(1), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), (l)(1), and (n). 
General compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are 
specified in Secs. 63.1108 through 63.1112. Minimization of emissions 
from startup, shutdown, and malfunctions must be addressed in the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by Sec. 63.1111; the 
plan must also establish reporting and recordkeeping of such events. 
Procedures for approval of alternate means of emission limitations are 
specified in Sec. 63.1113.

Table 10 to Sec.  63.1103.--What Are My Requirements if I Own or Operate
     a Spandex Production Process Unit at a New or Existing Source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If you own or operate * * *    And if * * *      Then you must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A storage vessel (as       The maximum      a. Comply with the
 defined in Sec.  63.1101)     true vapor       requirements of subpart
 that stores liquid            pressure of      WW of this part; or
 containing organic HAP.       the organic     b. Reduce emissions of
                               HAP is  3.4          percent by venting
                               kilopascals;     emissions through a
                               and.             closed vent system to
                              The capacity of   any combination of
                               the vessel is    control devices meeting
                                47   the requirements of
                               cubic meters.    subpart SS of this part,
                                                as specified in Sec.
                                                63.982(a)(1).
2. A process vent...........  ...............  Reduce emissions of
                                                organic HAP by 95 weight-
                                                percent; or reduce
                                                organic HAP or TOC to a
                                                concentration of 20
                                                parts per million by
                                                volume; whichever is
                                                less stringent, by
                                                venting emissions
                                                through a closed vent
                                                system to any
                                                combination of control
                                                devices meeting the
                                                requirements of subpart
                                                SS of this part, as
                                                specified in Sec.
                                                63.982(a)(2).
3. A fiber spinning line....  ...............  Operate the fiber
                                                spinning line such that
                                                emissions are captured
                                                and vented through a
                                                closed vent system to a
                                                control device that
                                                complies with the
                                                requirements of subpart
                                                SS of this part, as
                                                specified in Sec.
                                                63.982(a)(2). If a
                                                control device other
                                                than a flare is used,
                                                HAP emissions must be
                                                reduced by 95 weight-
                                                percent; or total
                                                organic HAP or TOC must
                                                be reduced to a
                                                concentration of 20
                                                parts per million by
                                                volume, whichever is
                                                less stringent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Section 63.1104 is amended by:
    a. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (a);
    b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e);
    c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (f)(1);
    d. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (k) introductory text; 
and
    e. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (m)(2)(i) introductory 
text.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1104  Process vents from continuous unit operations: 
applicability assessment procedures and methods.

    (a) * * * The owner or operator of a process vent is not required 
to determine the criteria specified for a process vent that is being 
controlled in accordance with the applicable weight-percent, TOC 
concentration, or organic HAP concentration requirement in 
Sec. 63.1103.
* * * * *
    (e) TOC or organic HAP concentration. The TOC or organic HAP 
concentrations, used for TRE index value calculations in paragraph (j) 
of this section, shall be determined based on paragraph (e)(1) or (k) 
of this section, or any other method or data that have been validated 
according to the protocol in Method 301 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 
63. * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A, as appropriate. * * *
* * * * *
    (k) * * * If a process vent flow rate or process vent organic HAP 
or TOC concentration is being determined for

[[Page 76456]]

comparison with the applicable flow rate or concentration value 
presented in the tables in Sec. 63.1103 to determine control 
requirement applicability, engineering assessment may be used to 
determine the flow rate or concentration for the representative 
operating conditions expected to yield the highest flow rate or 
concentration.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) Process change.
    (i) Whenever a process vent becomes subject to control requirements 
under this subpart as a result of a process change, the owner or 
operator shall submit a report within 60 days after the performance 
test or applicability assessment, whichever is sooner.* * *
* * * * *
    15. Section 63.1105 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1105  Transfer racks.

    (a) Design requirements. The owner or operator shall equip each 
transfer rack with one of the control options listed in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) A closed vent system designed to collect HAP-containing vapors 
displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the 
collected vapors to a flare. The owner or operator must meet the 
requirements of Sec. 63.982(a)(3).
    (2) A closed vent system designed to collect HAP-containing vapors 
displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the 
collected vapors to a control device other than a flare. The owner or 
operator must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.982(a)(3).
    (3) Process piping designed to collect the HAP vapors displaced 
from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the collected 
vapors to a process where the HAP vapors shall predominantly meet one 
of, or a combination of, the ends specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) 
through (iv) of this section or to a fuel gas system. The owner or 
operator must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.982(a)(3).
    (i) Recycled and/or consumed in the same manner as a material that 
fulfills the same function in that process;
    (ii) Transformed by chemical reaction into materials that are not 
HAP;
    (iii) Incorporated into a product; and/or
    (iv) Recovered.
    (4) Process piping designed to collect the HAP vapors displaced 
from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the collected 
vapors to a vapor balance system. The vapor balance system must be 
designed to route the collected HAP vapors to the storage vessel from 
which the liquid being loaded originated, or to another storage vessel 
connected to a common header, or to compress and route collected HAP 
vapors to a process.
    (b) Operating requirements. An owner or operator of a transfer rack 
shall operate it in such a manner that emissions are routed through the 
equipment specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Control device operation. Whenever HAP emissions are vented to 
a control device used to comply with the provisions of this subpart, 
such control device shall be operating.
    (d) Tank trucks and railcars. The owner or operator shall load HAP-
containing materials only into tank trucks and railcars that meet the 
requirement in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section, and shall 
maintain the records specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (1) Have a current certification in accordance with the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT) pressure test requirements of 49 CFR 
part 180 for tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for railcars; or
    (2) Have been demonstrated to be vapor-tight within the preceding 
12 months as determined by the procedures in paragraph (h) of this 
section. Vapor-tight means that the pressure in a truck or railcar tank 
will not drop more than 750 pascals (0.11 pound per square inch) within 
5 minutes after it is pressurized to a minimum of 4,500 pascals (0.63 
pound per square inch).
    (e) Pressure relief device. The owner or operator of a transfer 
rack subject to the provisions of this subpart shall ensure that no 
pressure relief device in the loading equipment of each tank truck or 
railcar shall begin to open to the atmosphere during loading. Pressure 
relief devices needed for safety purposes are not subject to the 
requirements of this paragraph.
    (f) Compatible system. The owner or operator of a transfer rack 
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall load HAP-containing 
materials only to tank trucks or railcars equipped with a vapor 
collection system that is compatible with the transfer rack's closed 
vent system or process piping.
    (g) Loading while systems connected. The owner or operator of a 
transfer rack subject to this subpart shall load HAP-containing 
material only to tank trucks or railcars whose collection systems are 
connected to the transfer rack's closed vent system or process piping.
    (h) Vapor tightness procedures. For the purposes of demonstrating 
vapor tightness to determine compliance with paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section, the procedures and equipment specified in paragraphs (h)(1) 
and (2) shall be used.
    (1) The pressure test procedures specified in Method 27 of appendix 
A to 40 CFR part 60.
    (2) A pressure measurement device that has a precision of 
 2.5 millimeters of mercury (0.10 inch) or better and that 
is capable of measuring above the pressure at which the tank truck or 
railcar is to be tested for vapor tightness.
    (i) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator of a transfer rack shall 
record that the verification of DOT tank certification or Method 27 of 
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 testing required in Sec. 63.84(c) has been 
performed. Various methods for the record of verification can be used 
such as: A check off on a log sheet, a list of DOT serial numbers or 
Method 27 data, or a position description for gate security showing 
that the security guard will not allow any trucks on-site that do not 
have the appropriate documentation.
* * * * *
    16. Subpart YY is proposed to be amended by adding Sec. 63.1114 to 
read as follows:


Sec. 63.1114  Implementation and enforcement.

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA, or a 
delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, 
local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to 
implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional 
Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or 
tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part 
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(5) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards 
in Sec. 63.1103(a)(3), (b)(3) through (5), (c)(3), (d)(3), (e)(3), 
(f)(3), (g)(3) and (4), and (h)(3) under Sec. 63.6(g). Follow the 
requirements in Sec. 63.1113 to request permission to use an 
alternative means of emission limitation. Where these standards 
reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated 
according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
    (2) [Reserved]

[[Page 76457]]

    (3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.

[FR Doc. 00-29767 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P