Browse by Year
/ 2002
/ July
/ Friday, July 12, 2002
[Federal Register: July 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 134)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46257-46289]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12jy02-13]
[[Page 46257]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic
Maximum Achievable Control Technology; Final Rules and Proposed Rule
[[Page 46258]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7215-7]
RIN 2060-AH68
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates 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 that allows 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
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. This action also promulgates NESHAP for the
heat exchange systems and wastewater operations at ethylene
manufacturing facilities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-97-17 contains supporting information used in
developing the generic MACT standards. Dockets established for each of
the source categories to be assimilated under the generic MACT
standards with this action 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. EPA, 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 further information concerning
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or
local agency representative. If no State or local representative is
available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in 40 CFR
63.13. For information concerning the analyses performed in developing
the NESHAP, contact the following at the Emission Standards Division,
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone/facsimile/ e-mail
Information type Contact (mailcode) Group address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General........................... Mark Morris (C50404). Organic Chemicals (919) 541-5416/(919) 541-3470/
Group. morris.mark@epa.gov
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing... Keith Barnett Organic Chemicals (919) 541-5605/(919) 541-3470/
(C50405). Group. barnett.keith@epa.gov
Carbon Black Production........... John Schaefer Organic Chemicals (919) 541-0296/(919) 541-3470/
(C50404). Group. schaefer.john@epa.gov
Ethylene Production............... Warren Johnson Organic Chemicals (919) 541-5267/(919) 541-3470/
(C50404). Group. johnson.warren@epa.gov
Spandex Production................ Elaine Manning Waste and Chemical (919) 541-5499/(919) 541-3470/
(C43903). Processes Group. manning.elaine@epa.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information considered 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.
Public Comments. The NESHAP for the four source categories
mentioned above were proposed on December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76408). The
comment letters received on the proposal are available in Docket No. A-
97-17 or the dockets established for the four source categories (see
ADRESSESS), along with a summary of the comment letters and EPA's
responses to the comments. In response to the public comments, EPA
adjusted the final NESHAP where appropriate.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's final NESHAP will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the NESHAP will be posted on the
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or final rules at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html. 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:
[[Page 46259]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. Not all facilities classified under the NAICS or SIC codes are
affected. Other types of entities not listed could be affected. To
determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1104 of the final NESHAP.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Judicial Review: The NESHAP were proposed on December 6, 2000 (65
FR 76408). This action announces EPA's final decisions on the NESHAP.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the final NESHAP
is available by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 10, 2002.
Only those objections to the NESHAP which were raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment may be raised during
judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
that are the subject of today's final NESHAP may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of the NESHAP?
B. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
C. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
D. Why is the EPA including today's standards in the generic
MACT standards?
II. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal to 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart YY and the Referenced Subparts
III. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
IV. Carbon Black Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
C. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Applicability
V. Ethylene Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
VI. Spandex Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost and Economic Impacts
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
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. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Congressional Review Act
J. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of the NESHAP?
The purpose of the final NESHAP is to protect the public health by
reducing emissions of HAP from facilities in four source categories:
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene
Production, and Spandex Production.
B. 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 four
categories of major sources for which NESHAP are being established by
today's action were listed on the following dates: Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing, July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and February 12, 1998 (63 FR
6291); Carbon Black Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197); Ethylene
Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197); and Spandex Production, July
16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the
potential to emit greater than 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or
25 tpy of any combination of HAP.
C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we 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 the 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 the standard is set at a level that assures that all
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards 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 in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing
five 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 of achieving the
emissions reductions, any health and
[[Page 46260]]
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
D. Why Is the EPA Including Today's Standards in the Generic MACT
Standards?
We are including 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 including 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.
II. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal to 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart YY and the Referenced Subparts
The major comments received regard the performance specifications
for continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) that were proposed
as an amendment to the referenced 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. Other
comments received on subpart YY and the referenced subparts and the
responses to those comments are in Docket No. A-97-17.
Several commenters stated that the proposed performance
specifications for CPMS would be costly and would not provide an
environmental benefit. We proposed performance specifications for CPMS
to ensure that such systems are installed, calibrated, and operated in
a manner that would yield accurate and reliable information regarding
the performance of closed vent systems and control devices. Subpart SS
currently states that ``all monitoring equipment shall be installed,
calibrated, maintained, and operated according to manufacturer's
specifications or other written procedures that provide adequate
assurance that the equipment would reasonably be expected to monitor
accurately.'' Therefore, owners and operators are already required by
subpart SS to follow written performance specifications, but not
necessarily the ones that we proposed in the amendments.
We have decided not to include the performance specifications for
CPMS in the final subpart SS for two reasons. First, the number and
complexity of the comments would not allow for the expeditious
promulgation of the standards for the four source categories we are
including under subpart YY. Second, we are currently developing
performance specifications for CPMS to be followed by owners and
operators of all sources subject to standards under 40 CFR part 63.
Since owners and operators subject to subpart SS are currently
required to follow specifications for CPMS, even though they may not be
as specific as those we proposed, we have decided to wait for the
rulemaking that will propose performance specifications for all of 40
CFR part 63. We decided it would be premature to promulgate performance
specifications for subpart SS when the performance specifications that
would ultimately be promulgated for all of 40 CFR part 63 may be
significantly different as a result of possible public comments
received on that rulemaking.
III. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
Nationwide baseline HAP emissions are estimated to be 238 megagrams
per year (Mg/yr) (263 tpy). The final standards will reduce HAP
emissions by approximately 106 Mg/yr (117 tpy). This is a 45 percent
HAP emission 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 final standards.
We also estimate that the final standards will reduce emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 102 Mg/yr (113 tpy). We estimate
that the final standards will result in an increase in sulfur oxides
(SOX) emissions of 7.3 Mg/yr (8 tpy), an increase in
nitrogen oxides (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). Increases in emissions would result from on-site combustion of
fossil fuels and emission streams because of control device operations.
2. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
We believe that there will not be significant adverse non-air
health, environmental or energy impacts associated with the final
standards. This is supported by impacts analyses associated with the
application of the control and recovery devices required under the
final standards. We determine impacts relative to the baseline that is
set at the level of control in absence of the rule.
Control of equipment leaks is expected to reduce the amount of HAP-
containing material that would be discharged to a facility's wastewater
treatment stream through equipment washdown or from stormwater runoff.
The use of a scrubber for HAP control of emissions from vents will
create HAP-containing effluent. It is anticipated that any wastewater
stream created from the use of a scrubber would be treated at a
facility's wastewater treatment system with other waste streams.
There are minimal solid or hazardous waste impacts expected as a
result of the final standards. 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 minimum
amount of solid or hazardous waste could also be generated from the use
of steam strippers to control wastewater emissions. The possible
sources generated include organic compounds recovered in the steam
stripper overhead condenser or solids removed during feed pretreatment.
The energy demands associated with the final standards will result
from the use of additional electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil to
run control equipment. The storage tank, transfer operations, equipment
leak, and wastewater controls are not expected to require any
additional energy. The total nationwide energy demand that would result
from implementing the process vent controls is approximately 3.1 x
10\14\ Joules per year.
[[Page 46261]]
3. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
The total estimated capital cost of the final standards is
$939,000. The total estimated annual cost of the final standards is
$2.4 million. These costs represent fourth quarter 1998 dollars.
We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the impacts
that the final standards would have on the cyanide manufacturing
market, consumers, and society. The total annualized social cost (in
1998 dollars) of the final standards 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 final standards for the cyanide chemicals
manufacturing source category would experience costs in excess of 0.001
percent of sales. For this reason, we believe that the impact of the
final standards will be minimal. No cyanide chemicals manufacturing
facility closures are expected.
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
In response to comments received on the proposed standards, we made
several changes to the final standards, as well as some clarifications
designed to make our intentions clearer. The substantive comments and/
or changes and responses made since the proposal are summarized in the
following paragraphs. Our complete responses to public comments are
contained in a memorandum that can be obtained from the docket (see
ADDRESSES section).
1. Applicability of the Rule
Some commenters expressed that there was potential for confusion
regarding the applicability of the rule. One commenter requested that
we specifically exempt downstream equipment from the cyanide chemicals
manufacturing NESHAP if the equipment is subject to another NESHAP.
Another commenter expressed that confusion regarding the
overlapping requirements affecting the same equipment could be reduced
if refined hydrogen cyanide (HCN) ``burned on-site as a fuel in a
boiler or industrial furnace'' was excluded as part of the HCN process.
The commenter explained that some producers that generate HCN as a
byproduct of acrylonitrile manufacture opt to burn the byproduct HCN
on-site as a fuel in boilers and/or industrial furnaces where its end
use is regulated under other standards.
One commenter requested that we clarify and restrict the
applicability of the rule by revising the definition of ``CCMPU'' as
follows:
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
shall be limited to 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 * * *.
The commenter explained that, as proposed, the definition of CCMPU
could include a chemical manufacturing process unit that creates HCN or
sodium cyanide as an incidental or unintended byproduct that could be
considered an affected source subject to the cyanide chemicals
manufacturing requirements. The commenter stated that this
clarification could also be fulfilled by modifying the definition for
``cyanide chemicals product,'' as follows:
Cyanide chemicals product means either hydrogen cyanide or
sodium cyanide which is manufactured as the intended product of a
CCMPU or a byproduct of the Sohio process. Other hydrogen cyanide or
sodium cyanide byproducts, impurities, wastes and trace contaminants
are not considered to be cyanide chemicals products.
Based on comments received, we made a few changes to the final
standards. To avoid overlapping requirements applying to downstream
boilers and/or industrial furnaces, we excluded HCN vent streams used
for fuel value in boilers and/or industrial furnaces from HCN chemical
manufacturing processes. Exclusion of these boilers and industrial
furnaces that use vented emissions for fuel value from the requirements
of the cyanide chemicals manufacturing process control requirements is
consistent with what is done in other MACT standards.
We also made the commenter's suggested amendments to the ``CCMPU''
and ``cyanide chemicals product'' definitions in the final standards.
These amendments were made because the intent of the commenter's
suggested amendments is consistent with our intent, and we believe that
the amended definitions will reduce any potential confusion regarding
the applicability of the rule.
2. Process Vent Standards
BMA/Andrussow process vent MACT control level. During our
evaluation of comments received on the proposed process vent standards,
we reevaluated the MACT level of control established for BMA/Andrussow
process vents. Based on our reevaluation, we decided to remove from the
MACT analyses HCN rich vent streams that are routed to a boiler or
industrial furnace for use as fuel. We did this to be consistent with
other NESHAP and because these vent streams are already regulated by
other standards. Once we removed these streams and adjusted the floor
based on new information received from industry, the MACT floor and
MACT level of control was determined to reduce HAP emissions by 98
weight-percent (rather than by 99 weight-percent) or to a concentration
level of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Therefore, the final
standards have been modified to require that you reduce HAP emissions
from Andrussow/BMA process vents by 98 weight-percent (rather than by
99 weight-percent), or to a concentration level of 20 ppmv. Because the
MACT level of control has been changed to 98 weight-percent, the final
standards also allow you to comply with the requirements for Andrussow/
BMA process vents by routing emissions to a flare.
Wet-end process vents. One commenter requested that the final
standards clarify that cyanide chemical manufacturing wastewater
collection systems and treatment equipment (tanks) containing discarded
wastewater are not part of the process and are not subject to the
process vent requirements. The commenter explained that weak HAP and
cyanide bearing wastewater is sent to, and handled in, on-site
wastewater collection and treatment systems and collected in sumps and
pumped into tanks where the wastewater is either recycled to recover
HCN, or treated in these tanks by hydrolysis and alkaline chlorination.
The commenter stated that such vents should be clarified to be subject
to the requirements specified for process and maintenance wastewater
control requirements under 40 CFR 63.1106 (a) and (b).
Based on this comment, we evaluated the wet end of the sodium
cyanide process unit regarding the clarity of the applicability of the
wet-end process vent requirements versus the applicability of discarded
process wastewater vent requirements. Based on the definitions for
``wet-end process vent,'' ``wastewater,'' and ``process wastewater,''
applicability of requirements appeared to be clear. However, to avoid
any potential applicability confusion, the final standards include an
amended definition for ``wet-end process vent'' that specifically
clarifies that discarded water that is no longer used in the production
process is considered to be process wastewater and that vents from
process and maintenance wastewater
[[Page 46262]]
operations are not wet-end process vents.
Annual emissions. One commenter stated that the MACT floor
determination for Andrussow/BMA process vents was based on annual
emissions and the proposed standards require compliance with the floor
level of control based on a formula that calculates an overall HAP
emission reduction based on hourly emission rates. The commenter
requested that compliance be based on meeting the proposed weight-
percent reduction on an annual basis to be consistent with the MACT
floor. The commenter also requested that Item 2 of Table 9 be modified
as follows:
a. Reduce the overall annual emission 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.
We agree that the MACT floor for Andrussow/BMA process vents was
based on annual emissions and, therefore, compliance with MACT should
also be based on annual emissions. We have amended the final standards
(Item 2 of Table 9 of Sec. 63.1103(g)) as suggested by the commenter.
3. Unsafe-to-Monitor Equipment
Two commenters expressed safety concerns with the proposed leak
detection and repair (LDAR) provisions. It was expressed that many of
the lines in HCN service are intentionally placed in out-of-the-way
locations to minimize risk in the event of a leak. One commenter
requested that we either exempt ``unsafe-to-monitor'' equipment
components from the LDAR program or stay implementation of these
requirements to allow adequate opportunity to investigate safer methods
than those proposed. The commenter explained that a large percentage of
pipeline components in HCN service that would be subject to the
proposed LDAR provisions are elevated and are not accessible during
operation due to safety concerns. The commenter stated that facilities
already have procedures in place to ensure that there are no leaks when
equipment is in HCN service. Industry feedback indicates that HCN
equipment is unsafe to monitor at all times that equipment is in
operation.
Based on our evaluation of the comments received regarding safety
concerns with the proposed LDAR provisions, we concur that there are
some equipment components that may never be safe to monitor. Therefore,
we have added language to the final standards specifying that you are
allowed to designate ``unsafe-to-monitor'' equipment with your
Notification of Compliance Status report. If it is demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction that designated equipment is never safe to
monitor, you would not be required to monitor the designated equipment.
4. Hydrogen Fueled Flares
Destruction efficiency. One commenter expressed that a 99%+
destruction efficiency is supported for hydrogen flares based on data
included in the EPA's ``Basis for Hydrogen Flaring'' report. The
commenter stated that these data were based on test methods developed
with the EPA and a special flare test-rig built for the experiment.
Another commenter requested that we add language to 40 CFR
63.1103(g)(4)(ii)(B) to allow an owner or operator of a cyanide
manufacturing facility to include a flare control efficiency greater
than 98% in the calculation of the overall HAP emission reduction,
provided they can demonstrate a higher control efficiency based on
technically relevant measurements that are of sufficient quality,
considering data variability.
We agree with the commenters that an owner or operator of a cyanide
manufacturing facility should be allowed to include a flare control
efficiency greater than 98% in the calculation of their overall HAP
emission reduction provided they can demonstrate a higher control
efficiency for their flare. Therefore, the final standards allow an
owner or operator to include a flare control efficiency greater than
98% in the calculation of their overall HAP emission reduction if they
can demonstrate, to the Administrator's satisfaction, a greater control
efficiency (40 CFR 63.1103(g)(4)(ii)(A)).
Flare compliance monitoring requirements. Several commenters
recommended that a waiver from testing for all HCN flares be granted.
Specifically, one commenter requested a waiver from testing of the net
heating value using EPA Method 18, and two commenters requested that a
waiver from testing the velocity, using EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, be granted (40 CFR 63.11(b)(6)(ii) and
(7)(i), respectively). One commenter expressed that flow velocity
testing using EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, require the insertion of a probe into the waste gas stream
which poses safety risks.
Based on comments received regarding it being unsafe to test HCN-
rich vent streams to flares, and our evaluation of the comments, we
have included provisions in the final standards that allow an owner or
operator to submit engineering calculations and/or data to substantiate
that flares meet applicable heat content and flow rates under worst
case conditions (40 CFR 63.987(b)(3)(v) and (4)).
IV. Carbon Black Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
We estimate that the final NESHAP will reduce HAP emissions by
1,830 Mg/yr (2,020 tpy). This is a 26 percent HAP emission reduction
from the total baseline HAP emissions, and a 95 percent HAP emission
reduction for those facilities required to install controls to meet the
standards.
We estimate that the final NESHAP will reduce CO emissions by
474,000 Mg/yr (522,000 tpy); VOC by 16,900 Mg/yr (18,600 tpy); hydrogen
sulfide by 10,300 Mg/yr (11,300 tpy); and PM by 740 Mg/yr (820 tpy). We
estimate that the final NESHAP will increase SOX emissions
by 32,900 Mg/yr (36,200 tpy) as a result of on-site combustion of
fossil fuels. However, the air quality benefits of the final NESHAP
(i.e., reduction in HAP, CO, VOC, and hydrogen sulfide 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 final NESHAP is $54.9
million. The total estimated annual cost of the final NESHAP is $11.2
million. These costs represent fourth quarter 1998 dollars.
We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the impacts the
final NESHAP will have on the industry, market, consumers, and society.
The total annualized social cost (in 1997 dollars) of the final NESHAP
to the industry is $11.2 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 final NESHAP will
experience costs in excess of 1 percent of sales, and no firm will
experience costs in excess of 1.5 percent of sales. For this reason, we
believe that the impact of the final NESHAP will be minimal. We expect
no facility closures as a result of the final NESHAP.
[[Page 46263]]
3. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
We believe that there will not be any significant adverse non-air
health, environmental or energy impacts associated with the final
NESHAP. This is supported by impacts analyses associated with the
application of control and recovery devices required under the final
NESHAP.
There are no water pollution or solid waste impacts expected from
the use of air emission control devices as a result of the final
NESHAP. An increase in energy consumption will result from the use of
combustion control systems. We estimate that carbon black production
facilities will consume an additional 186 million cubic feet of natural
gas per year to meet the regulatory requirements of the final NESHAP.
This represents an increase in total domestic natural gas consumption
of less than 1/100th of one percent.
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
In response to comments received on the proposed standards for the
Carbon Black Production source category, we made several changes to the
final NESHAP. Only one substantive change was made based on comments
received on the proposal. We have summarized the relevant comment/
change made in the following paragraphs. Our complete responses to
public comments are contained in a memorandum that can be obtained from
the docket (see ADDRESSES section).
One commenter requested an exemption from the closed vent system
initial and annual closed vent system inspection requirements. The
commenter expressed that certain safety features are incorporated into
their closed vent system operations to protect against overpressure in
the case of catastrophic failure of their process filter systems.
Concern was expressed that the proposed initial and annual closed vent
system inspection requirements may defeat these safety measures because
cost-effective technology to provide leak proof seals for the extreme
operating temperature ranges that occur in the carbon black production
process is not available. The commenter explained that the catastrophic
loss of a bag filter due to gaseous build-up and failure can result in
ignition of gases, fires, and explosions. In order to prevent the
failure of the compartments, industry isolates the failed compartment
from the process. Safety relief valves (e.g., weighted-lid systems) are
designed into the system to relieve excess pressures, to prevent fires
and explosions, and to prevent loss of compartments. The commenter
explained that a typical pressure relief device used in carbon black
production does not seal 100 percent, but that the process emits very
small amounts of HAP, and single bag failure results in emissions that
lead to opacity exceedances.
We evaluated the commenter's concerns and request for exemption
from closed vent system inspection requirements for specified pressure
relief devices used to protect against overpressure in the case of
catastrophic failure of their process filter systems. Based on safety
concerns and technology considerations, we have included provisions in
the final NESHAP that exempt pressure relief devices that meet
specified criteria (i.e., devices used to protect against overpressure
in the case of catastrophic failure of the process filter system) from
the closed vent system inspection requirements of 40 CFR 63.983(b) and
(c). The final NESHAP require that exempted pressure relief devices
meeting criteria specified in the NESHAP be identified in your
Notification of Compliance Status report.
C. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Applicability
A question arose concerning the potential installation of
cogeneration technology at carbon black plants which would recover
waste heat and gas for use as a fuel input for power generation. This
technology could potentially be used to meet the HAP control
requirements of the NESHAP. However, cogeneration may result in
NOX emissions during normal operation. If NOX
emission increases are great enough, they may trigger the need for
preconstruction permits under the nonattainment new source review (NSR)
or prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. It is
possible, however, that we could consider the application of
cogeneration technology to be a pollution control project (PCP), as
defined within the context of PSD and NSR, such that cogeneration
facilities installed as a result of the NESHAP would qualify for an
exemption from NSR/PSD.
In 1992, we adopted an explicit PCP exclusion for electric utility
steam generating units (57 FR 32314). In a July 1, 1994, guidance
memorandum, we provided guidance to permitting authorities on the
approvability of PCP exclusions for source categories other than
electric utilities. In that guidance (available at http://www.epa.gov/
rgytgrnj/programs/artd/air/nsr/nsrmemos/pcpguide.pdf), we indicated
that add-on controls and fuel switches to less polluting fuels may
qualify for an exclusion from major NSR as a PCP. To be eligible to be
excluded from otherwise applicable major NSR requirements, a PCP must,
on balance, be ``environmentally beneficial,'' and the permitting
authority must ensure that the project will not cause or contribute to
a violation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or
PSD increment, or adversely affect visibility or other air quality
related values (AQRV) in a Class I area, and that offsetting reductions
are secured in the case of a project which would result in a
significant increase of a nonattainment pollutant. The permitting
authority can make these determinations outside of the major NSR
process. The 1994 guidance did not supercede existing NSR requirements,
including approved State NSR programs, nor void or create an exclusion
from any applicable minor source preconstruction review requirements in
an approved State implementation plan (SIP). Any minor NSR permitting
requirements in a SIP would continue to apply, regardless of any
exclusion from major NSR that might be approved for a source under the
PCP exclusion policy.
We believe that the current guidance on the PCP exclusion
adequately provides for the possible exemption from major NSR for
cogeneration technology resulting from the NESHAP. Permitting
authorities should follow that guidance to the extent allowed under the
applicable SIP in order to determine whether the installation of
cogeneration technology in a given circumstance qualifies as a PCP.
Projects that qualify for the exclusion would be covered under minor
source regulations in the applicable SIP, and permitting authorities
would be expected to provide adequate safeguards against NAAQS and
increment violations and adverse impacts on AQRV in Federal Class I
areas. Only in those areas where potential adverse impacts cannot be
resolved through the minor NSR programs or other mechanisms would major
NSR apply.
V. Ethylene Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
Environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts were estimated
for the proposed ethylene production NESHAP. No changes have been made
to the provisions for process vents, storage vessels, transfer
operations, or equipment leaks that would affect these estimates. The
changes that were made
[[Page 46264]]
to the waste and heat exchange system requirements did not materially
change the estimated impacts. The changes generally refined the NESHAP
provisions and made them consistent with the basis of the original
estimates; therefore, the impacts estimates have not been revised.
Specifically, the original estimates of impacts associated with
heat exchange system requirements were estimated to be minimal because
the proposed NESHAP would have required monthly monitoring which is
already being performed by most facilities. As pointed out by several
comments, most facilities are not testing at the inlet and outlet of
each heat exchanger, as required in the proposed NESHAP, and such a
requirement would result in increased compliance costs. However, this
requirement has been removed from the NESHAP, making the requirements
consistent with the basis of the original impacts assessment.
Although the requirements for waste have been significantly
revised, they remain consistent with the basis for the original impacts
assessment. The original assessment was based on the assumption that
facilities with a total annual benzene (TAB) quantity less than 10 Mg/
yr would have to add equipment to manage and treat waste streams. The
revised waste requirements maintain this requirement. For facilities
with a TAB quantity greater than 10 Mg/yr, the majority of comments
regarding the impacts estimated for waste concerned the fact that costs
were not included for facilities that will have to add equipment to
manage and treat streams that were previously uncontrolled due to a
compliance option. The revised NESHAP allow facilities to use the
compliance options; therefore, it is not necessary to revise the
impacts assessment.
The estimates of environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts,
which have not been revised, are presented in detail in the preamble
for the proposed ethylene production NESHAP (65 FR 76433, December 6,
2000). In summary, it is estimated that the NESHAP will decrease HAP
emissions by 60 percent or 992 Mg/yr (1,090 tpy) and VOC emissions by
64 percent or 9,271 Mg/yr (10,188 tpy). The annual cost (including
amortized capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and recovery
credits) is estimated to range from $7,600 per year for facilities
already managing and treating their waste according to the Benzene
Waste Operations NESHAP to $1.3 million per year for facilities with a
TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr that are not currently subject to the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP requirements to manage and treat waste
streams. No adverse economic impact is expected and no significant
adverse non-air health, environmental, or energy impacts are expected
to result from compliance with the ethylene production NESHAP.
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
Comments on the proposed NESHAP were received from ten different
entities. A comprehensive summary of public comments can be found in
the document entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants--Ethylene Production, Background Information Document for
Final Standards, Summary of Public Comments and Responses'' (the
ethylene production NESHAP BID). The BID contains summaries of all of
the comments received with corresponding responses that describe all of
the changes that have been made to the NESHAP.
The most significant comments concerned three emission types:
waste, heat exchange systems, and equipment leaks. These comments also
resulted in the most significant changes to the proposed NESHAP. The
following sections summarize the comments received and changes that
have been made regarding waste, heat exchange systems, and equipment
leaks.
1. Waste Operations
Several commenters disagreed with the determination of MACT for
waste for a variety of reasons. Generally, commenters argued that the
MACT floor should be based on the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. As
such, commenters viewed our proposed requirements as more stringent
than the MACT floor, which they stated are not justified. Commenters
mainly disagreed with the fact that the proposed waste requirements did
not include the 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr compliance options, the 10 Mg/yr TAB
quantity applicability cut-off, and applicability and treatment
requirements based on benzene. We considered each of the specific
issues and came to the conclusions discussed in the following sections.
Compliance options. At proposal, we determined that the standard
requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP represented the
MACT floor for both new and existing ethylene sources. The standard
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP requirements state that facilities with
10 Mg/yr or greater TAB quantity must control waste streams that have
flow rates of at least 0.02 liters per minute (lpm), wastewater
quantities of at least 10 Mg/yr, and benzene concentrations of at least
10 parts per million by weight (ppmw). In addition to the standard
control requirements, the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP includes
three compliance options that allow a facility to chose which streams
to manage and treat as long as certain conditions are met: either the
TAB quantity for the untreated waste streams cannot exceed 2 Mg/yr, the
facility TAB quantity for treated and untreated process wastewater
streams is less than 1 Mg/yr, or the facility TAB quantity for all
waste streams with at least 10 percent water content is less than 6 Mg/
yr. These options are referred to as the 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr compliance
options. The waste or wastewater streams that can be exempted from
management and treatment vary with the different compliance options.
Details of these compliance options are specified in 40 CFR 61.342(c),
(d), and (e) of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP.
Commenters disagreed with the fact that the compliance options were
not included in the waste requirements for the proposed Ethylene
Production NESHAP. Generally, the commenters argued that the compliance
options have been found to be equivalent to the standard requirements
of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP, through development of the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP and the waste standards for the
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP and, therefore, should be included. The
commenters also noted that three of the five best performing facilities
are using a compliance option.
Since proposal of the Ethylene Production NESHAP, we have obtained
information on which facilities are using compliance options and what
streams they are controlling. Our general finding is that, regardless
of how a facility is complying with the Benzene Waste Operations
NESHAP, facilities typically control continuous streams, and facilities
tend not to control intermittent streams. Examples of streams that are
typically not controlled are samples and maintenance waste (both during
normal operations and turn-arounds). The fact that the same types of
streams are typically being controlled, regardless of whether a
facility is complying with the standard requirements or a compliance
option, supports the finding that the 1, 2 and 6 Mg/yr compliance
options are equivalent to the standard Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP
requirements (and to each other) in the level of control achieved at
ethylene production facilities. Therefore, we have determined that it
is appropriate to include the 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr
[[Page 46265]]
compliance options in the Ethylene Production NESHAP.
10 Mg/yr applicability cut-off. Under the proposed NESHAP, all
ethylene production facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions,
including those with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr, would have been
required to comply with the waste management and treatment
requirements. Facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr are not
currently required to comply with the management and treatment
requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. Commenters argued
that because the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP represents the floor,
the 10 Mg/yr applicability cut-off should be included in the Ethylene
Production NESHAP. Commenters cited the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP as
a precedent, noting that the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP was
determined to represent the MACT floor for waste control at petroleum
refineries and the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP does not require control
of waste at sources with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr.
Review of the practices in use at the five best performing ethylene
production facilities (representing 12 percent of the industry) shows
that four of the five are subject to and, therefore, are assumed to be
complying with the management and treatment requirements of the Benzene
Waste Operations NESHAP. Only one of the best performing facilities is
not required to comply with the management and treatment requirements
of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP because the TAB quantity for the
facility is less than 10 Mg/yr. Exempting facilities with a TAB
quantity less than 10 Mg/yr from management and treatment requirements
would not reflect the level of control achieved by the average of the
five best-performing facilities.
We have determined that the MACT floor for waste includes the
management and treatment of waste streams from ethylene production,
regardless of a facility's TAB quantity. However, using the Benzene
Waste Operations NESHAP stream applicability requirements to determine
which streams must be controlled at facilities with a TAB quantity less
than 10 Mg/yr may not be appropriate. The 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr compliance
options are not appropriate because their use at a facility with a TAB
quantity less than 10 Mg/yr could result in no waste streams being
controlled. For example, the 6 Mg/yr option allows a facility to choose
which streams to manage and treat as long as the TAB quantity for all
streams is less than 6 Mg/yr. If the TAB quantity for the facility is
already 6 Mg/yr or less, no streams would have to be managed and
treated, which is not consistent with the MACT floor level of control.
Requiring facilities to comply with the standard requirements of the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP would also not be appropriate because
it may require the facilities to treat intermittent streams which are
generally not controlled by the best-performing facilities that form
the basis of the MACT floor determination.
We have determined that the most appropriate way to require
facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr to achieve the level
of control achieved by the best-performing facilities is to specify the
streams that must be controlled. Data received since proposal indicate
that the best performing ethylene facilities control two types of
streams as part of their Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP compliance
strategy: (1) Spent caustic streams (wastes from the caustic washing
process to remove sulfur compounds and other contaminants from the
process stream), and (2) dilution steam blowdown streams (condensed
steam used to quench the cracked gas condensates). We have determined
that it is appropriate to apply the flow rate and concentration control
applicability cut-offs in the standard requirements of the Benzene
Waste Operations NESHAP to these streams. The best-performing
facilities are generally not controlling intermittent streams.
Based on this information, the Ethylene Production NESHAP have been
revised to require that facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/
yr manage and treat, according to the requirements of the Benzene Waste
Operations NESHAP, each spent caustic and dilution steam blowdown waste
stream with a benzene concentration greater than or equal to 10 ppmw, a
flow rate greater than or equal to 0.02 lpm, and an annual wastewater
quantity greater than or equal to 10 Mg/yr. The control requirements
for these streams apply at all times except during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), if the SSM precludes the ability to
comply and the facility follows the provisions of their SSM plan.
Benzene as a surrogate. One modification made to the Benzene Waste
Operations NESHAP requirements for the proposed Ethylene Production
NESHAP waste requirements was to base the requirements on total HAP
rather than benzene. For example, in the standard requirements of the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP, a stream containing less than 10 ppmw
of benzene is not required to be managed and treated. Under the
proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP, streams containing less than 10
ppmw total HAP would not have been required to be managed and treated.
Similarly, the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP require streams to be
treated to reduce benzene to 10 ppmw or by 99 percent while the
proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP would have required streams to be
treated to reduce total HAP to 10 ppmw or by 99 percent.
Several commenters disagreed with EPA's decision to base
applicability and treatment requirements on total HAP rather than
benzene. Commenters argued that because they are currently treating
wastes based on benzene concentration, the requirement to treat wastes
based on total HAP concentration is an above-the-floor option. The
commenters stated that existing treatment systems are not likely to be
capable of treating to the more stringent standards based on total HAP.
Commenters stated that although the additional costs would be
significant, the additional emission reductions would be minimal
because benzene is generally an appropriate surrogate for HAP, and
little additional emission reduction would be achieved.
Our original intent in proposing stream applicability and treatment
requirements on total HAP content rather than benzene content was to
ensure that streams containing HAP other than benzene are treated and
controlled. We maintain that because compliance with the Benzene Waste
Operations NESHAP represents the MACT floor and results in control of
HAP other than benzene, the MACT floor includes control of HAP other
than benzene. However, we have determined that it is not necessary to
base stream applicability and treatment requirements on total HAP to
ensure that all HAP are managed and treated. Information obtained
through survey responses and comments shows that, with few exceptions,
all of the waste streams from ethylene production units that contain
HAP contain benzene. According to commenters (Docket A-98-22), of all
the waste streams generated by 33 ethylene manufacturing production
units, only two do not contain benzene but contain other HAP. One
stream is generated from a reflux drum on a debutanizer column. The
stream contains 1,3-butadiene and has a flow rate of 2 gallons per
minute. The other stream is an intermittent stream that is generated
during turnarounds that contains naphthalene. Applying the finding that
the best-performing
[[Page 46266]]
facilities generally control continuous streams but not intermittent
streams, either due to flow rate and concentration cut-offs or use of a
compliance option, we have determined that controlling the continuous
1,3-butadiene stream, but not the naphthalene turnaround stream, is
consistent with the MACT floor. To ensure that continuous streams that
contain HAP other than benzene are controlled, while at the same time
minimizing the burden of identifying these streams, we are specifically
requiring management and treatment of waste streams that contain
greater than or equal to 10 ppmw of 1,3-butadiene. To ensure that this
requirement does not result in the control of intermittent streams that
are generally not controlled, the flow rate applicability cutoffs for
benzene-containing streams (0.02 lpm or 10 Mg/yr wastewater quantity)
also applies to the butadiene streams.
We have determined that it is not necessary to express the
treatment requirements in terms of total HAP. We agree with commenters
that treatment and control devices used to remove or destroy benzene
will remove and destroy the other HAP regulated by this rule to
approximately the same level. Benzene can be used as a surrogate to
determine treatment and control efficiencies. If no benzene is present
in a regulated stream, another HAP (such as 1,3-butadiene) must be used
to show that treatment and control efficiencies required for benzene
are achieved for that HAP. In such cases, compliance can also be
demonstrated by routing the stream to a control device that is being
used to comply with the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP.
Off-site waste treatment. Some facilities send their regulated
wastes off-site for treatment by another entity. The proposed rule
specified that wastes must not be transferred unless the transferee has
submitted to EPA a certification that they will manage and treat the
waste in accordance with the rule and that they accept the
responsibility for compliance. Several commenters stated that the
certification requirements should be deleted.
The final rule retains the certification requirements. The
discharger has the ultimate responsibility for assuring that waste
transferred to another party for off-site treatment is treated in
conformity with the applicable standard. The transferee is acting as
the agent of the discharger when it accepts responsibility for treating
the waste. The provisions in the proposal requiring certification by
the transferee are less onerous for the discharger than the only
practicable alternative, which would require that the discharger
actively supervise the activities of the offsite treatment facility.
The certification provisions are similar to the requirements of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart G (the Hazardous Organic NESHAP), and will pose no
unreasonable burden on the generators or receivers of the waste.
2. Heat Exchange Systems
Sampling location. The proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP included
requirements to sample cooling water at the inlet and outlet of each
heat exchanger for the presence of compounds that indicate a leak.
Sampling at each heat exchanger was required to address the fact that
cooling water circulation rates through ethylene production units tend
to be relatively high. Obtaining only one inlet and outlet sample for
the entire system (for example, at the cooling tower) could result in a
leak not being detected because the concentration of the leaked
compound could be lower that the detection limit of the testing method
used.
Several commenters argued that the requirement does not reflect the
floor level of control, stating that none of the best-performing
facilities are required to test at the inlet and outlet of every heat
exchanger. These commenters argued that such a requirement would be an
above-the-floor option that is not cost effective. Several commenters
provided estimates of the additional costs associated with sampling and
testing at each heat exchanger. The estimated annualized costs provided
by the commenters ranged from $60,000 to $1.2 million per year for a
single ethylene production unit.
One commenter suggested an approach for addressing the circulation
rate issue. The commenter based the suggestion on the assumptions that:
(1) The requirements of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP result in an
adequate level of leak detection, and (2) the circulation rate of
cooling water through an ethylene production unit is eight times the
circulation rate through a Hazardous Organic NESHAP unit. Using these
assumptions, the 1 ppmw leak definition of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP
and the average of circulation rates reported for ethylene units in
survey responses, the commenter estimated that a 6.35 pound per hour
(lb/hr) leak rate would be detected at a Hazardous Organic NESHAP unit.
The commenter suggested allowing facilities to decide where to test for
leaks with the condition that a leak of this magnitude would be
detected. The commenter stated that such a requirement would ensure a
level of performance comparable to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP and
would provide facilities flexibility to tailor a monitoring program to
their unique circumstances. The commenter explained that one facility
may choose to sample the combined cooling water flow from many heat
exchangers using a test method with a relatively low detection limit,
while another may sample the flow from fewer exchangers using a higher
detection limit.
Based on information provided by commenters, we agree that
requiring testing at the inlet and outlet of each heat exchanger does
not represent the floor level of control. We find that the suggestion
to allow facilities to develop a site-specific sampling plan based on
performance comparable to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP would represent
the floor. We have reviewed and agree with the commenter's suggested
approach for establishing the floor level sampling plan based on a
specified leak detection limit, with one exception. We adjusted the
calculation to correct an error in calculating the average circulation
rate, which resulted in a leak rate that must be detected of 6.75 lb/
hr. Going beyond the floor to the proposed testing requirement would
impose costs that are unreasonable given the small emissions reductions
that would be achieved. The final rule allows the use of any sampling
location plan that is sufficiently sensitive to detect a leak rate of
6.75 lb/hr.
Monitoring frequency. Commenters expressed concern that the
proposed rule did not allow reduced heat exchanger monitoring frequency
for sustained good performance, which is allowed in other LDAR
programs. One of the commenters suggested that we adopt the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP requirements for heat exchanges, which start with
monthly monitoring and then allow quarterly monitoring. We agree with
these comments in general. The floor for heat exchangers is an LDAR
program with monthly monitoring. We recognize, however, that the
emission performance of LDAR programs is variable and is influenced by
a number of site-specific factors. We believe that providing an
incentive in the final rule for reduced monitoring will encourage
facilities to undertake measures to diagnose the causes of leaks and
reduce the frequency of occurrence. Accordingly, the final rule
includes a provision for reduced monitoring for units with sustained
good performance in preventing leaks. This provision is generally
consistent with the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, and we believe it is
[[Page 46267]]
equivalent to the floor and will provide an incentive for greater
emissions reductions while minimizing monitoring burden.
The final rule requires monthly monitoring for the first 6 months.
If no leaks are detected during this period, then the monitoring
frequency changes to quarterly. If a leak is subsequently detected,
then monthly monitoring is required until the leak is repaired. After
the leak is repaired, then monthly monitoring is required for 6 months.
If no leaks occur during this period, the monitoring frequency returns
to quarterly.
Repair requirements. The proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP would
have required a leak to be repaired within 15 days of being detected.
Commenters stated that the best-performing facilities are not required
to repair leaks within 15 days so this is an above-the-floor option.
Commenters provided detailed comments on the steps and costs involved
in repairing heat exchangers.
Our original intent in requiring repair in 15 days was to provide
consistency with the repair requirements for other leaking components.
Through the comments received in response to the proposed NESHAP, we
have learned that repairing heat exchangers is different than repairing
other types of leaking components. According to commenters, to repair a
heat exchanger, it must be shut down, isolated from the process,
cleaned, opened, tested to find the leak(s), and repaired. The
commenters added that removing an exchanger from service often requires
a unit to be shutdown. Commenters provided the contrasting example of a
leaking valve, for which packing and flange bolts can often simply be
tightened externally or, in extreme cases, can be externally pumped
with a sealant or clamped to repair. Based on the information received
in response to the proposed NESHAP, we agree that the 15-day repair
period is more stringent than the floor and that the more stringent
requirement is not reasonable because it does not allow adequate time
for repair. We have determined that a 45-day repair period represents
the floor. This is the repair period allowed by the Hazardous Organic
NESHAP. In addition to extending the repair period to 45 days, we have
revised the repair and delay of repair provisions to be consistent with
the Hazardous Organic NESHAP.
3. Equipment Leaks
The proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP required connector
monitoring. Commenters disagreed with the approach EPA used to
determine the MACT floor, stating that HAP emissions from uncontrolled
connectors are overestimated due to an inaccurate emission factor. One
commenter (Docket A-98-22) provided an alternate emission factor based
on data that they gathered from ethylene production units. According to
the commenter, when their emission factor is used in the MACT floor
analysis, it results in a different five best-performing facilities, of
which only two perform connector monitoring. Commenters asserted that
connector monitoring is, therefore, not part of the floor. In addition,
one commenter explained that their study shows that there is no
statistically significant difference between the average emission rates
for connectors being monitored for the first time and those that are
monitored as part of a continuing monitoring program. Commenters also
provided cost data to show that some facilities will incur high costs
to monitor connectors with no statistically measurable emissions
benefit.
Due to uncertainties regarding connector emission factors used in
the original MACT floor analysis, we performed an analysis using an
emission factor provided by a commenter; however, this does not mean
that we have accepted the commenter's emissions factor as a more
accurate estimator of connector emissions (Docket A-98-22). The
objective of the analyses was to determine the impact using different
connector emission factors would have on which facilities are
determined to be the five best-performing sources. Although this
analysis resulted in a slightly different five best-performing sources,
the floor was the same, since three of the five facilities are
monitoring connectors. Through this analysis, we have concluded that,
regardless of the emission factor used, the majority of the best-
performing facilities are performing connector monitoring.
We also conducted a study of the existing permits at certain
facilities that had adopted permit conditions requiring 100 percent
connector monitoring annually in exchange for emissions credits to be
used for operational flexibility. In setting the MACT floor we found
our knowledge of existing permit conditions compelling in terms of
emissions benefits and therefore relevant in establishing the MACT
floor. Certainly any monitoring worthy of conducting for the purpose of
obtaining emissions credits was beneficial beyond cost.
Based on these analyses, we conclude that connector monitoring is
part of the MACT floor. We do not believe that the available data
support the commenters' conclusion that connector monitoring should not
be included in the MACT floor. However, in consideration of the data
submitted by the industry, we elected to require compliance with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UU, National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks,
which requires connector monitoring, but also allows for reduced
monitoring frequency for good performance instead of annual monitoring.
This provides the opportunity to reduce monitoring costs in cases where
a low proportion of connectors are leaking. In offering a performance-
based requirement for connector monitoring, we also have provided some
consistency in approach with the heat exchanger and other equipment
monitoring provisions.
VI. Spandex Production
A. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
1. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
There are no additional emissions reductions achieved by the final
NESHAP. The level of control required by the final 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 final NESHAP 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 because 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 final NESHAP and
to determine the economic effects that may result from the final
NESHAP. The Spandex Production source category contains five
facilities, but only the two facilities that use the reaction spinning
process are affected by the final
[[Page 46268]]
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 for additional add-on air pollution
control equipment are expected to be incurred by the spandex facilities
to comply with the final NESHAP. Instead, the compliance costs for the
final NESHAP relate primarily to monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping activities. The estimated total annualized cost for the
final NESHAP is $78,040, which represents less than 0.01 percent of the
revenues of the companies that own the spandex manufacturing
facilities. The final 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 cost 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 final
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 final 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
final NESHAP. The ratio of costs to company revenues is 0.10 percent.
At the company level, the final 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 Non-Air Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?
We believe that there would not be significant adverse
environmental or energy impacts associated with the final NESHAP. The
industry's baseline level of control is high, and the level of control
required by the final NESHAP is currently being achieved for the
emission point types. Environmental 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 final NESHAP.
There is no incremental increase in emissions related to water
pollution or solid waste as a result of the final NESHAP.
B. Summary of Major Comments and Changes Since Proposal
Comments on the proposed Spandex Production NESHAP were received
from two different entities: the Institute of Clean Air Companies
(ICAC) and Dupont. A summary and response to the general comments
submitted can be found in Docket A-98-25.
Dupont's comments expressed concern that because the dry spinning
spandex production process was not mentioned in the proposal, this
could be interpreted as no standard for this source category and, as a
result, these facilities would be subject to a case-by-case MACT
determination. The discussion of this comment can be found in direct
final amendments that are being published separately in this issue of
the Federal Register.
VII. 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 final regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that today's final rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' because it will not have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``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 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
rule.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to the 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 EPA'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
final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
[[Page 46269]]
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification
from its federalism official stating that EPA has met the requirements
of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
Today's final rule 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 final rule are owned by State or local
governments. Therefore, State and local governments will not have any
direct compliance costs resulting from the final rule. Furthermore, EPA
is directed to develop the final rule by section 112 of the CAA. Thus,
the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to
the final rule.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
The final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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 EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, EPA 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 EPA.
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. Today's final rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it establishes an
environmental standard based on technology, not health or safety risk.
No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative
technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a
reasonable cost. Furthermore, today's final rule has been determined
not to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order
12866.
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, EPA
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 an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA 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 EPA 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 EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, we 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that the final rule does 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 final rule contains no
mandates affecting State, local, or Tribal governments. Thus, today's
final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA.
We have determined that the final rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because it contains 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 us to give special consideration to the
effect of Federal regulations on small entities and to consider
regulatory options that might mitigate any such impacts. We must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless we determine 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 the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined differently for the four
source categories for which we are proposing standards. Based on those
definitions, there are no small entities affected by the final rule.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we have determined that
the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in today's final rule 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.
[[Page 46270]]
1893.03) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the U.S.
EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by
e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The
information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
Information is required to ensure compliance with the final rule.
If the relevant information were collected less frequently, EPA would
not be reasonably assured that a source is in compliance with the rule.
In addition, EPA's authority to take administrative action would be
reduced significantly.
The final rule requires owners or operators of affected sources to
retain records for a period of 5 years. The 5-year retention period is
consistent with 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 final rule 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 final rule to affect a total of 75 facilities
over the first 3 years. The EPA assumes that no new facilities will
become subject to the rule during each of the first 3 years. The EPA
expects 75 existing facilities to be affected by the final rule, 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 rule 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.
1893.03,'' in Docket No. A-97-17.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating and
Affected entity Total hours Labor costs Capital costs Maintenance Total costs
(10 3$) (10 3$) costs (10 3$) (10 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.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 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 final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the
following methods in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
2F, 2G, 3B, 4, 18, 25, 25A, 27, 316, and 320. Consistent with the
NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus
standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 27, and
316. Three voluntary consensus standards were identified as acceptable
alternatives to EPA test methods and procedures and are cited in the
final rule.
The voluntary consensus standard, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) PTC 19-10-1981--Part 10, Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses, is cited in the final rule for its manual method for
measuring the oxygen content of exhaust gas. Part 10 of ASME PTC 19-10-
1981 is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B.
The voluntary consensus standard, American Society for Testing and
Materials (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 rule 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.
[[Page 46271]]
The voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D1946-90 (2000), Standard
Practice for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas Chromatography, is an
acceptable method for measuring process vent emissions of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen for the purposes of the final rule.
The search and review results have been documented and are placed
in the Generic MACT docket (Docket No. A-97-17).
I. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
SBREFA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report
containing this final rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States, prior to publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and, therefore, will be effective
on July 12, 2002.
J. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 15, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is 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 Operations
Sec.
Introduction
63.1080 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.1081 When must I comply with the requirements of this subpart?
Definitions
63.1082 What definitions do I need to know?
Applicability for Heat Exchange Systems
63.1083 Does this subpart apply to my heat exchange system?
63.1084 What heat exchange systems are exempt from the requirements
of this subpart?
Heat Exchange System Requirements
63.1085 What are the general requirements for heat exchange
systems?
Monitoring Requirements for Heat Exchange Systems
63.1086 How 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
off-site?
Implementation and Enforcement
63.1097 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Tables to Subpart XX of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart XX of Part 63--Hazardous Air Pollutants
Table 2 to Subpart XX of Part 63--Requirements of 40 CFR Part 61,
Subpart FF, Not Included in the Requirements for This Subpart and
Alternate Requirements
Introduction
Sec. 63.1080 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes requirements for controlling emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from heat exchange systems and waste
streams at new and existing ethylene production 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).
Definitions
Sec. 63.1082 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), and 40 CFR 61.341.
(b) The following definitions apply to terms used in this subpart:
Continuous butadiene waste stream means the continuously flowing
process wastewater from the following equipment: The aqueous drain from
the debutanizer reflux drum, water separators on the C4 crude butadiene
transfer piping, and the C4 butadiene storage equipment; and spent wash
water from the C4 crude butadiene carbonyl wash system. The continuous
butadiene waste stream does not include butadiene streams generated
from sampling, maintenance activities, or shutdown purges. The
continuous butadiene waste stream does not include butadiene streams
from equipment that is currently an affected source subject to the
control requirements of another NESHAP. The continuous butadiene waste
stream contains less than 10 parts per million by weight (ppmw) of
benzene.
Dilution steam blowdown waste stream means any continuously flowing
process wastewater stream resulting from the quench and compression of
cracked gas (the cracking furnace effluent) at an ethylene production
unit and is discharged from the unit. This stream typically includes
the aqueous or oily-water stream that results from condensation of
dilution steam (in the cracking furnace quench system), blowdown from
dilution steam generation systems, and aqueous streams separated from
the process between the cracking furnace and the
[[Page 46272]]
cracked gas dehydrators. The dilution steam blowdown waste stream does
not include dilution steam blowdown streams generated from sampling,
maintenance activities, or shutdown purges. The dilution steam blowdown
waste stream also does not include blowdown that has not contacted HAP-
containing process materials.
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 more than one heat exchanger and can include an
entire recirculating or once-through cooling system.
Process wastewater means water which comes in contact with benzene
or butadiene during manufacturing or processing operations conducted
within an ethylene production 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.
Spent caustic waste stream means the continuously flowing process
wastewater stream that results from the use of a caustic wash system in
an ethylene production unit. A caustic wash system is commonly used at
ethylene production units to remove acid gases and sulfur compounds
from process streams, typically cracked gas. The spent caustic waste
stream does not include spent caustic streams generated from sampling,
maintenance activities, or shutdown purges.
Applicability for Heat Exchange Systems
Sec. 63.1083 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 production unit expressly referenced
to this subpart XX from subpart YY of this part. The provisions of
subpart A (General Provisions) of this part do not apply to this
subpart except as specified in subpart YY of this part.
Sec. 63.1084 What heat exchange systems are exempt from the
requirements of this subpart?
Your heat exchange system is exempt from the requirements in
Secs. 63.1085 and 63.1086 if it meets any one of the criteria in
paragraphs (a) through (e) 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 total HAP listed in
Table 1 to this subpart, 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 volume (ppmv) 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 all of 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 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 or once-through heat exchange system cools
process fluids that contain less than 5 percent by weight of total HAP
listed in Table 1 to this subpart.
Heat Exchange System Requirements
Sec. 63.1085 What are the general requirements for heat exchange
systems?
Unless you meet one of the requirements for exemptions in
Sec. 63.1084, 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 Sec. 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. 63.1086 How must I monitor for leaks to cooling water?
You must monitor for leaks to cooling water by monitoring each heat
exchange system according to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, monitoring each heat exchanger according to the requirements
of paragraph (b) of this section, or monitoring a surrogate parameter
according to the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section. If you
elect to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this
section, you may use alternatives in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this
section for determining the mean entrance concentration.
(a) Heat exchange system. Monitor cooling water in each heat
exchange system for the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart (either
total or speciated) or other representative substances (e.g., total
organic carbon or volatile organic compounds (VOC)) that indicate the
presence of a leak according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) You define the equipment that comprises each heat exchange
system. For the purposes of implementing paragraph (a) of this section,
a heat exchange system may consist of an entire heat exchange system or
any combinations of heat exchangers such that, based on the rate of
cooling water at the entrance and exit to each heat exchange system and
the sensitivity of the test method being used, a leak of 3.06 kg/hr or
greater of the HAP in Table 1 to this subpart would be detected. For
example, if the test you decide to use has a sensitivity of 1 ppmv for
total HAP, you must define the heat exchange system so that the cooling
water flow rate is 51,031 liters per minute or less so that a leak of
3.06 kg/hr can be detected.
(2) Monitoring periods. For existing sources, monitor cooling water
as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. Monitor heat
exchange systems at new sources according to the specifications in
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) Monitor monthly for 6 months, both initially and following
completion of a leak repair. Then monitor as provided in either
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) or (a)(2)(i)(B) of this section, as appropriate.
(A) If no leaks are detected by monitoring monthly for a 6-month
period, monitor quarterly thereafter until a leak is detected.
(B) If a leak is detected, monitor monthly until the leak has been
repaired. Upon completion of repair, monitor according to the
specifications in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(ii) Monitor the cooling water weekly for heat exchange systems at
new sources.
(3) Determine the concentration of the monitored substance in the
heat
[[Page 46273]]
exchange system cooling water using any method listed in 40 CFR part
136. Use the same method for both entrance and exit samples. You may
validate 40 CFR part 136 methods for the HAP listed in Table 1 to this
subpart according to the procedures in appendix D to this part.
Alternative methods may be used upon approval by the Administrator.
(4) Take a minimum of three sets of samples at each entrance and
exit.
(5) 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 10 percent
greater than the entrance mean, or a leak of 3.06 kg/hr or greater of
the HAP (total or speciated) in Table 1 to this subpart or other
representative substance into the cooling water is detected, you have
detected a leak.
(b) Individual heat exchangers. Monitor the cooling water at the
entrance and exit of each heat exchanger for the HAP in Table 1 to this
subpart (either total or speciated) or other representative substances
(e.g., total organic carbon or VOC) that indicate the presence of a
leak in a heat exchanger according to the requirements in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Monitoring periods. For existing sources, monitor cooling water
as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. Monitor each heat
exchanger at new sources according to the specifications in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Monitor monthly for 6 months, both initially and following
completion of a leak repair. Then monitor as provided in paragraph
(b)(1)(i)(A) or (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section, as appropriate.
(A) If no leaks are detected by monitoring monthly for a 6-month
period, monitor quarterly thereafter until a leak is detected.
(B) If a leak is detected, monitor monthly until the leak has been
repaired. Upon completion of repair, monitor according to the
specifications in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
(ii) Monitor the cooling water weekly for heat exchangers at new
sources.
(2) 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 ppmv. Use the
same method for both entrance and exit samples. Validation of 40 CFR
part 136 methods for the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart may be
determined according to the provisions of appendix D to this part.
Alternative methods may be used upon approval by the Administrator.
(3) Take a minimum of three sets of samples at each heat exchanger
entrance and exit.
(4) 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 ppmv or
10 percent greater than the entrance mean, whichever is greater, you
have detected a leak.
(c) Surrogate parameters. You may elect to comply with the
requirements of this section by monitoring using a surrogate indicator
of leaks, provided that you comply with the requirements of paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this section. Surrogate indicators that could be
used to develop an acceptable monitoring program are ion specific
electrode monitoring, pH, conductivity, or other representative
indicators.
(1) You shall prepare and implement a monitoring plan that
documents the procedures that will be used to detect leaks of process
fluids into cooling waters. The plan shall require monitoring of one or
more process parameters or other conditions that indicate a leak.
Monitoring that is already being conducted for other purposes may be
used to satisfy the requirements of this section. The plan shall
include the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv)
of this section.
(i) A description of the parameter or condition to be monitored and
an explanation of how the selected parameter or condition will reliably
indicate the presence of a leak.
(ii) The parameter level(s) or condition(s) that shall constitute a
leak. This shall be documented by data or calculations showing that the
selected levels or conditions will reliably identify leaks. The
monitoring must be sufficiently sensitive to determine the range of
parameter levels or conditions when the system is not leaking. When the
selected parameter level or condition is outside that range, you have
detected a leak.
(iii) Monitoring periods. For existing sources, monitor cooling
water as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section. Monitor
heat exchange systems at new sources according to the specifications in
paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.
(A) Monitor monthly for 6 months, both initially and following
completion of a leak repair. Then monitor as provided in paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(A)(1) or (c)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section, as appropriate.
(1) If no leaks are detected, monitor quarterly thereafter until a
leak is detected.
(2) If a leak is detected, monitor monthly until the leak has been
repaired. Upon completion of repair, monitor according to the
specifications in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section.
(B) Monitor the cooling water weekly for heat exchange systems at
new sources.
(iv) The records that will be maintained to document compliance
with the requirements of this section.
(2) If a leak is identified by audio, visual, or olfactory
inspection, a method listed in 40 CFR part 136, or any other means
other than those described in the monitoring plan, and the method(s)
specified in the plan could not detect the leak, you shall revise the
plan and document the basis for the changes. You shall complete the
revisions to the plan no later than 180 days after discovery of the
leak.
(3) You shall maintain, at all times, the monitoring plan that is
currently in use. The current plan shall be maintained on-site, or
shall be accessible from a central location by computer or other means
that provide access within 2 hours after a request. If the monitoring
plan is changed, you must retain the most recent superseded plan for at
least 5 years from the date of its creation. The superseded plan shall
be retained on-site or accessible from a central location by computer
or other means that provide access within 2 hours after a request.
(d) Simplifying assumptions for entrance mean concentration. If you
are complying with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you may elect
to determine the entrance mean concentration as specified in paragraph
(d)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Assume that the entrance mean concentration of the monitored
substance is zero; or,
(2) Determine the entrance mean concentration of a monitored
substance at a sampling location anywhere upstream of the heat
exchanger or heat exchange system, provided that there is not a
reasonable opportunity for the concentration to change at the entrance
to each heat exchanger or heat exchange system.
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)
[[Page 46274]]
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 45
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, use the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1086 within 7 calender days of the repair or
startup, whichever is later, to confirm that the heat exchange system
has been repaired.
Sec. 63.1088 In what situations may I delay leak repair, and what
actions must I take for delay of repair?
You may delay the repair of heat exchange systems 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 the next 2 months 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 the next 2 months 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 (4) of this section.
(1) State the reason(s) for delaying repair.
(2) Specify a schedule for completing the repair as soon as
practical.
(3) Calculate the potential emissions from the leaking heat
exchanger by multiplying the concentration of HAP listed in Table 1 to
this subpart (or other monitored substances) in the cooling water from
the leaking heat exchanger by the flow rate of the cooling water from
the leaking heat exchanger and by the expected duration of the delay.
(4) Determine emissions of HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart
(or other monitored substances) from purging and depressurizing the
equipment that will result from the unscheduled shutdown for the
repair.
(c) If repair is delayed because the necessary equipment, parts or
personnel are not available, you may delay repair a maximum of 120
calendar days. You must demonstrate that the necessary equipment, 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 (e) of this
section, according to the requirements of Sec. 63.1109(c).
(a) Monitoring data required by Sec. 63.1086 that indicate 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.
(e) If you validate a 40 CFR part 136 method for the HAP listed in
Table 1 to this subpart according to the procedures in appendix D to
this part, then you must keep a record of the test data and
calculations used in the validation.
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?
This subpart requires you to comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart
FF, National Emission Standards for Benzene Waste Operations. There are
some differences between the ethylene production waste requirements and
those of subpart FF.
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 (d) 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 (Mg/yr) from
control requirements.
(b) The requirements for ethylene production sources apply to
continuous butadiene waste streams which do not contain benzene
quantities that would make them subject to the management and treatment
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF.
(c) The requirements for ethylene production sources do not include
the compliance options at 40 CFR 61.342(c)(3)(ii), (d) and (e) for
sources with a total annual benzene quantity less than 10 Mg/yr.
(d) If you transfer waste off-site, you must comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.1096 rather than 40 CFR 61.342(f).
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 subpart YY of this part. The
provisions of subpart A (General Provisions) of this part do not apply
to this subpart except as specified in a referencing subpart.
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 that is not transferred off-site, you must comply with
the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section for continuous
butadiene waste streams and paragraph (b) of this section for benzene
waste streams. If you
[[Page 46275]]
transfer waste off-site, you must comply with the requirements of
Sec. 63.1096.
(a) Continuous butadiene waste streams. Manage and treat continuous
butadiene waste streams that contain greater than or equal to 10 ppmv
1,3-butadiene and have a flow rate greater than or equal to 0.02 liters
per minute, according to either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this
section. If the total annual benzene quantity from waste at your
facility is less than 10 Mg/yr, as determined according to 40 CFR
61.342(a), the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply
also.
(1) Route the continuous butadiene stream to a treatment process or
wastewater treatment system used to treat benzene waste streams that
complies with the standards specified in 40 CFR 61.348. Comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF; with the changes in Table 2
to this subpart, and as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (v)
of this section.
(i) Determine the butadiene concentration of the waste stream
according to 40 CFR 61.355(c)(1) through (3), except substitute ``1,3-
butadiene'' for each occurrence of ``benzene.'' You may validate 40 CFR
part 136 methods for 1,3-butadiene according to the procedures in
appendix D to this part. You do not need to determine the butadiene
concentration of a waste stream if you designate that the stream must
be controlled.
(ii) Comply with 40 CFR 61.342(c)(1)(ii) and (iii) for each waste
management unit that receives or manages the waste stream prior to and
during treatment or recycling of the waste stream.
(iii) Comply with the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR
61.356(b), (b)(1) and (b)(2), except substitute ``1,3-butadiene'' for
each occurrence of ``benzene'' and ``continuous butadiene waste
stream'' for each occurrence of ``waste stream.''
(iv) Comply with the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 61.357(a),
(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(3)(iii) through (v), and (d)(1) and (2), except
substitute ``1,3-butadiene'' for each occurrence of ``benzene'' and
``continuous butadiene waste stream'' for each occurrence of ``waste
stream.''
(v) Include only the information in 40 CFR 61.357(a)(2) and
(a)(3)(iii) through (v) in the report required in 40 CFR 61.357(a) and
(d)(2).
(2) Comply with the process wastewater requirements of subpart G of
this part. Submit the information required in Sec. 63.146(b) in the
Notification of Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.1110(d). Submit
the information required in Sec. 63.146(c) through (e) in either the
Periodic Reports required in Sec. 63.152 or the Per |
