United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-453/P-99-001
December 1999
Air
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP):
POLYMERS AND RESINS (GROUPS I AND IV)
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
-------
EPA-453/P-99-001
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) FOR
POLYMERS AND RESINS (GROUPS I AND IV)
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Emission Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
December 1999
-------
Disclaimer
This report is issued by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names and/or commercial products is not
intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit
organizations-as supplies permit-from the Library Services Office (MD-35), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919-541-2777) or, for a
nominal fee, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703-487-4650).
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polymers and Resins
(Groups I and IV) and Polyether Polyols Production-
Background Information for Promulgated Amendments
Prepared by:
w. , v.^ ^"' t *^ ' *
Penny Lassiteix (Date)
Acting Group Leader, Organic Chemicals Group
Emission Standards Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
1 The final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) will regulate
emissions of hazardous air pollutants from Polymers and Resins (Groups I and IV)
manufacturing operations. Only those operations that are part of major sources under
section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 will be regulated.
2 Copies of this document have been sent to the following Federal Departments: Labor, health
and Human Services, Defense, Transportation, Agriculture, Commerce, interior, and Energy;
the national Science Foundation; and the Council on environmental Quality; members of the
State and Territorial Air Pollution program Administrators; the Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officials; EPA Regional Administrators; and other interested parties.
3 For additional information contact:
Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel
Organic Chemicals Group (MD-13)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Telephone: (919)541-5608
in
-------
4. Paper copies of this document may be obtained from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: (703) 487-4650
U. S. EPA Library Services Office (MD-35)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
5. Electronic copies of this document may be obtained from the EPA's OAR Technology
Transfer Network web site (TTNWeb).
The TTNWeb is a collection of related Web sites containing information about many areas of
air pollution science, technology, regulation, measurement, and prevention. The TTNWeb is
directly accessible from the Internet via the World Wide Web at the following address:
http//www. epa.gov/ttn
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL OF AMENDMENTS 1-3
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2-1
2.1 APPLICABILITY 2-1
2.2 COMPLIANCE DATES 2-9
2.3 DEFINITIONS 2-12
2.4 EMISSION STANDARDS 2-21
2.5 CONTINUOUS PROCESS VENT PROVISIONS 2-22
2.6 BATCH PROCESS VENTS 2-26
2.7 BACK-END PROVISIONS 2-27
2.8 WASTEWATER PROVISIONS 2-30
2.9 EQUIPMENT LEAK PROVISIONS 2-32
2.10 GENERAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .... 2-33
2.11 THE TABLES 2-38
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 BACKGROUND
On September 5, 1996 (61 FR 46906) and September 12, 1996 (61 FR 48208), the EPA
issued the "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Group I Polymers and
Resins," (40 CFR part 63, subpart U) and the "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Group IV Polymers and Resins," (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJ), respectively, under
Section 112(d) of the Act. On March 9, 1999, the EPA proposed amendments to both subparts U
and JJJ (64 FR 11560).
Public comments were requested on the proposed amendments and comment letters were
received from industry representatives. A total of six comment letters were received. Table 1-1
presents a listing of all persons that submitted written comments, their affiliation, and their air
docket number and item number. A public hearing was not requested.
In the March 9, 1999 notice, the EPA also requested comments on the application of
specific concepts that were being proposed for the Polymers and Resins rules to 40 CFR subpart
PPP (Polyether Polyols Production). In some instances, subpart PPP directly references sections
of subpart U to which amendments were proposed. In other instances, the EPA proposed to
incorporate concepts into subpart PPP that were proposed in subparts U and JJJ on March 9,
1999. No comments specific to subpart PPP were received. Therefore, on June 1, 1999 (64 FR
29420), the EPA published the final Polyether Polyols Production NESHAP, which included the
concepts proposed in the March 9, 1999 action.
The written comments that were submitted on the proposed amendments to subparts U
and JJJ have been summarized, and responses to the comments are included in the following
sections. This summary of comments and responses serves as the basis for revisions made to the
NESHAP between proposal of amendments to subparts U and JJJ of part 63 and promulgation of
the amendments to those subparts.
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Air Docket
Number
A-92-44
A-92-44
A-92-44
A-92-44
A-92-45
A-92-45
A-92-45
Docket
Item Number
VIII-D-04
VIII-D-05
VIII-D-06
VIII-G-01
VIIIa-D-02
VIIIa-D-03
VIIIa-D-04
Commenter and affiliation
D.L. Chapman, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
S.V. Capone, GE Plastics3
R.K. Richmond, Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex
Co.
B.L. Taranto, Exxon Chemical Americas
J.A. Dege, DuPont SHE Excellence Center
S.C. Myers, Eastman Chemical Co.
S.V. Capone, GE Plastics
Date of Letter
05-06-99
05-08-99
05-05-99
06-23-99
05-07-99
05-07-99
05-08-99
a The same comment letter from S.V. Capone, GE Plastics, was submitted to both dockets. Whenever a comment
made by this commenter is cited throughout this document, both docket item numbers are listed.
1-2
-------
1.2 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL OF AMENDMENTS
In response to comments received on the proposed amendments, several changes have
been made to the final NESHAP. A summary of the substantive changes made since the
March 9, 1999 proposal is provided in the following sections. Section 2.0 provides a detailed
summary of all comments and EPA responses, along with regulatory text.
1.2.1 Compliance Dates
Due to the extensive nature of the amendments and the proximity of the proposed
amendments to the September 1999 compliance dates (September 5 for subpart U and September
12 for subpart JJJ), several commenters requested an extension of the compliance dates for
existing sources. They indicated that due to the amendments, they would have to re-evaluate
applicability, compliance status, and the basis for demonstrating compliance. After review of the
comments submitted on this issue, and the specific rule examples provided, the EPA decided that
setting a new compliance date for the revised rule was warranted. Therefore, on June 30, 1999,
the EPA published a direct final rule in the Federal Register (64 FR 35023), which stayed certain
compliance dates "indefinitely." In the June 30, 1999 Federal Register notice, the EPA indicated
that new compliance dates that would provide a reasonable amount of time in which to comply
with the amended regulations would be published when the final amendments to the regulations
were promulgated.
As pointed out by the commenters, many of the rule changes that may impact compliance
are related to the provisions that are used to determine whether controls are required for a
particular emission point. In addition, the EPA recognized that a change in compliance date also
impacts certain reports that are required to be submitted prior to the compliance date (discussed
below). One commenter suggested a compliance date of at least nine months after promulgation
of the amendments. However, the EPA did not believe that nine months was a sufficient time
period to allow for (1) the re-evaluation of whether controls are required by the owner or
operator, (2) the submission of reports that are due prior to the compliance date, and (3) review
of these reports by the Administrator. The EPA concluded that one year was a reasonable
amount of time for accomplishment of these activities. Therefore, the final amendments require
that existing affected sources comply with the non equipment leak requirements by the date one
year after publication of the promulgated amendments.
1-3
-------
One of two documents, the precompliance report or the emissions averaging plan (if
applicable), is required to be submitted prior to the compliance date. The dates that these reports
were originally required to be submitted were prior to the publication of the proposed
amendments on March 9, 1999. The EPA believes that owners or operators should have the
opportunity to submit, or resubmit, these reports after evaluating the final amendments.
Therefore, the final amendments change the required submission dates of the emissions
averaging plan to three months after the publication date (nine months before the compliance
date) and the precompliance report to six months after the publication date (six months before the
compliance date).
In another compliance date issue, a commenter requested that the compliance date for
newly created emission points be changed to 120 days after the initial startup, rather than the
proposed requirement that such points be in compliance at initial startup. The EPA agrees that
time may be necessary to evaluate the actual impact of a process change after initial startup in
some instances. Therefore, the final rule requires that new emission points and newly created
Group 1 emission points be in compliance with the existing source requirements within 120 days
of initial startup.
1.2.2 Additions to Existing Affected Sources
The proposed definition of reconstruction and the proposed provisions that applied the
definition of reconstruction |§§63.480(i)(2)(i) and 63.1310(i)(2)(i)} were inconsistent. To
summarize, the proposed §§63.480(i)(2)(i) and 63.1310(i)(2)(i) stated that if any process change
or addition that meets the definition of reconstruction is made after June 5, 1995 (June 12, 1995
for subpart JJJ), the source is a new affected source. However, the proposed definition of
reconstruction in §§63.482 and 63.1312 only addressed the "replacement", and not the
"addition", of components. One commenter suggested that the definition of "reconstruction" be
amended to also include additions.
The General Provisions for part 63 clearly separate replacements from additions. The
definition of reconstruction in the General Provisions only addresses the "replacement" of
components, while §63.5(b)(6) of the General Provisions addresses additions. In the proposed
language for §§63.480(i)(2)(i) and 63.1310(i)(2)(i), these two concepts were combined, thus
creating confusion and making them inconsistent with the EPA's policies regarding replacements
1-4
-------
and additions. Therefore, rather than amending the definition of reconstruction in §§63.482 and
63.1312, the EPA has revised the provisions in §§63.480(i)(2) and 63.1312(i)(2) to clearly
distinguish how replacements of components are to be considered and how additions are to be
considered. In summary, if the replacement of components at an existing affected source meets
the definition of reconstruction, then the affected source becomes a new affected source. If an
addition is made to an existing affected source, then the addition becomes part of the existing
affected source.
1.2.3 Halogenated Process Vent Provisions
The purpose of the halogenated vent provisions is to reduce the hydrogen halides that are
created when halogenated organic compounds are routed to a combustion device. Therefore, the
important location for determining whether a vent stream is halogenated is prior to the stream
entering a combustion device. The location specified in both subparts U and JJJ for making
batch vent group determinations is at the exit of the batch unit operation (i.e., before any
recovery, recapture, or combustion device). Therefore, any reduction in the mass emission rate
of halogen atoms that occurs in a recovery or recapture device would not be taken into account.
A commenter requested that the rules allow the determination of the concentration of each
organic compound containing halogen atoms at the recovery device or process discharge, for the
purposes of determining whether the vent stream is considered to be a halogenated batch process
vent. The EPA agreed, and in the final amendments, the rules have been changed to specify that
the concentration of each organic compound containing halogen atoms be determined "at the exit
of the last recovery or recapture device."
1.2.4 Requirements During Startup. Shutdown, and Malfunction and During Periods of
Nonoperation
Several comments were received on the provisions related to the requirements during
startup, shutdown, and malfunction and during periods of nonoperation. As a result of these
comments, the following changes were made. In the final rule, excess emissions are defined as
"emissions greater than those allowed by the emissions limitation which would apply during
operational periods other than start-up, shutdown, and malfunction." Also, the amount of
information required to be submitted with reports of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions was
1-5
-------
reduced to the level specified by the 40 CFR Part 63 General Provisions. Finally, the rules were
revised to clarify that immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports are not required.
1.2.5 Definition of Organic HAP
As a result of comments, the table specifying known hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emitted for specific elastomer/thermoplastic products has been revised for certain products.
Specifically, in subpart U, checks for hexane, toluene, and xylenes for the styrene butadiene
rubber by emulsion and styrene butadiene latex elastomer products were removed. Carbon
disulfide was added to the table and checked for styrene butadiene rubber by emulsion. Also, in
subpart JJJ, the check for 1,3-butadiene for the Actrylonitrile styrene acrylate resin/Alpha methyl
styrene acrylonitrile resin (ASA/AMSAN) product was removed.
1-6
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
In the comment summaries and responses contained in the following sections, an addition
to specific rule language is represented by underlining, while text removed is represented in
strikeout font.
2.1 APPLICABILITY
Applicability: Comments on Both Rules
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 believed that the vague language in §§63.480(a)(3)
and 63.1310(a)(3) might cause confusion among owners and operators. The commenter
suggested the following change:
"A new affected source is defined by as something that meets the criteria of paragraph
(a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii), or (a)(3)(iii) of this section."
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter, and has made the suggested change in
the final versions of subparts U and JJJ.
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-05/VHIa-D-04 pointed out that §§63.480(f)(3) and
63.1310(f)(3) contradict §§63.480(f)(9) and 63.1310(f)(9), in that paragraph (f)(9) allows an
owner or operator to state that they will never produce another elastomer or thermoplastic and,
therefore, that their source is exempt from subpart U or JJJ, while paragraph (f)(3) requires an
annual redetermination of the primary product of a process unit that has produced ANY
elastomer or thermoplastic in the previous 5 year period. The commenter requested that the EPA
clarify that the owner or operator of a flexible operation unit that has permanently terminated the
production of elastomers (or thermoplastics) is not required to perform the annual primary
product redetermination discussed in paragraph (f)(3).
Response: The EPA agrees that clarification is needed regarding the interaction between
§§63.480(f)(3) and 63.1310(f)(3) and §§63.480(f)(9) and 63.1310(f)(9). Therefore, in the final
rule, §§63.480(f)(3) and 63.1310(f)(3) were revised to provide that clarification. Paragraph
§63.480(f)(3) reads as follows, and §63.1310(f)(3) mirrors the following language:
2-1
-------
(3) Annual Applicability Determination for non-EPPUs that have produced an
elastomer product. Once per year beginning September 5, 2001, the owner or operator of
each flexible operation unit that is not designated as an EPPU, but that has produced an
elastomer product at any time in the preceding five-year period or since the date that the
unit began production of any product, whichever is shorter, shall perform the evaluation
described in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (f)(3)(iii) of this section. However, an owner or
operator that does not intend to produce any elastomer product in the future in accordance
with (f)(9) of this section is not required to perform the evaluation described in
paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (f)(3)(iii) of this section.
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-05/VIIIa-D-04 objected to the requirement that the owner
or operator of an EPPU or TPPU that has been operating as a flexible operation unit must
continue to comply with subpart U or JJJ (as applicable), even when elastomer/thermoplastic
products are no longer the primary product of the flexible operation unit, if the new primary
product does not make the flexible operation unit subject to another subpart of part 63.
Response: The provisions referred to by the commenter are contained in §§63.480(f)(10)
and 63.1310(f)( 10). These provisions specify that the owner or operator redetermine the primary
product of a process unit (based on actual previous production) whenever changes in products
occur that could reasonably be expected to change the primary product. If the primary product
indeed changes, then the process unit would no longer be subject to subpart U or JJJ if the new
primary product makes the process unit subject to another subpart of part 63 (i.e., another MACT
standard). If the new primary product does not make the process unit subject to another subpart
of part 63, then the process unit must continue to comply with subpart U or JJJ, provided that the
production of elastomer/thermoplastic continues. If production of all elastomers or
thermoplastics has ceased, the process unit would no longer be subject to subpart U or JJJ,
provided that the conditions in §§63.480(f)(9) or 63.1310(f)(9) are met.
If the EPA had incorporated the commenter's suggestion, a major source could have
continued to produce a product covered by subpart U or JJJ (i.e., an elastomer or thermoplastic)
and to emit hazardous air pollutants (HAP), but not be subject to any requirements to reduce
those HAP emissions, hi fact, controls that were in place earlier to reduce HAP emissions would
no longer have been required, and might be removed. The EPA does not believe that it is
appropriate to remove a product from coverage of the rule under these circumstances, nor does it
2-2
-------
believe the Clean Air Act dictates placing the source in a yet unregulated category. Therefore,
the final rule was not changed in response to this comment.
Comment: Commenter Vffl-D-04 requested that §§63.480(i)(l)(i) and 63.1310(i)(l)(i)
be modified as follows:
"If a group of one or more EPPUs[TPPUs] that produce the same primary product is
added to a plant site, the added group of one or more EPPUsjTPPUs] and associated
equipment, as listed in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, shall be a new affected source and
shall comply with the requirements for a new affected source in this subpart upon initial
start-up or by September 5[12], 1996, whichever is later, if the added group of one or
more EPPUs[TPPUs] meets the criteria specified in either paragraph (i)(l)(i)(A) or
(i)(l)(i)(B)-arc-met, and if the criteria in either paragraph (i)(l)(i)(C) or (i)(l)(i)(D) of this
section are met."
Response: The EPA agrees that the suggested changes clarify the intent of this paragraph
that only the added EPPUs/TPPUs (and not existing EPPUs/TPPUs that were part of an existing
affected source at the plant site) would comprise the new affected source. Therefore, the
suggested change was made in the final amendments.
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-05/VIIIa-D-04 believes that, as proposed, §§63.480(i)(2)
and 63.1310(i)(2) do not provide enough time (or the opportunity to request enough time)
between the day on which a process change causes the addition of an emission point to an
EPPU/TPPU or causes a Group 2 emission point to become a Group 1 emission point, and the
day on which the owner or operator is required to be in compliance with subpart U or JJJ for that
emission point. The commenter pointed out that under the promulgated rules, the owner or
operator was only required to comply with the applicable requirements as "expeditiously as
practical" after such a change [§§63.480(i)(3) and 63.1310(i)(3)], and that if the owner or
operator was going to be unable to comply with the new requirements, then the owner or operator
could seek additional time to comply [§§63.480(i)(2)(ii) and (iii) and 63.1310(i)(2)(ii) and (iii)].
In the proposed amendments, the emission point must be in compliance at initial startup of the
emission point. The commenter requested that the EPA allow a finite amount of time (they
suggested 120 days) in which the owner or operator must bring an emission point into
compliance after a process change. The commenter indicated that the situation could occur
2-3
-------
where post-process change data reveals that controls are required (i.e., the emission point is
Group 1) when it was predicted that control was not required based on best estimates before the
change. In this situation, the owner or operator would be out of compliance. Allowing 120 days
after initial startup would allow evaluation of the actual post-process change conditions. In
addition, the commenter stated that due to changes in the language in §§63.480(i)(2)(ii),
(i)(2)(iii), and (i)(3) and 63.1310(i)(2)(ii), (i)(2)(iii), and (i)(3) in the proposed amendments, the
commenter believes that the owner or operator would no longer be able to seek additional time to
comply. The commenter stated that the proposed amendments to §§63.481(e) and 63.131 l(e), as
well as the amendments to the applicability of §63.6 of the General Provisions (in Table 1 of
subparts U and JJJ) do not remedy this situation. The commenter requested that the EPA allow
requests for approval of compliance extensions of up to one year after the process change, when
necessary.
Response: In the promulgated rule, §§63.480(i)(2)(ii) and 63.1310(i)(2)(ii) addressed the
general situation where a process change is made or an emission point added that creates an
additional Group 1 emission point. Paragraphs §63.480(i)(3) and §63.1310(i)(3) addressed
situations where a process change causes a Group 2 emission point to become Group 1. Upon
reconsideration of these provisions, the EPA concluded that there could not be a situation
covered by §63.480(i)(3) or §63.1310(i)(3) that would not also be covered by §63.480(i)(2)(ii)
and §63.1310(i)(2)(ii). Therefore, as described in the preamble to the proposed amendments (64
FR 11572), §63.480(i)(3) and §63.1310(i)(3) were removed to eliminate this redundancy.
However, while these paragraphs covered the same situation, they contained different
dates on which a newly created Group 1 point was required to comply. Paragraphs
§63.480(i)(2)(ii) and §63.1310(i)(2)(ii) stated that the emission point must comply upon initial
startup, or by 3 years after September 5, 1996, whichever is later. Those paragraphs did contain
the option to obtain an extension of this compliance date pending the approval of the
Administrator. Paragraphs §63.480(i)(3) and§63.1310(i)(3), which were quoted by the
commenter, required compliance "as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3
years after the emission point becomes a Group 1 emission point." In evaluating this difference
prior to the March 9, 1999 proposal of amendments to subparts U and JJJ, the EPA concluded
that the compliance date provisions in §63.480(i)(2)(ii) and §63.1310(i)(2)(ii) were more
2-4
-------
appropriate. The EPA did not believe that owners or operators needed three years to bring these
new emission points, which would be additions to existing affected sources that were already in
compliance with the rule, into compliance.
The commenter requested that the compliance date be changed to 120 days after the
initial startup. The EPA believes that the rationale provided by the commenter related to the
need to conduct a final evaluation of whether controls are required after the process change is
reasonable. Therefore, the final rule requires that new emission points and newly created
Group 1 emission points be in compliance with the existing source requirements within 120 days
of initial startup.
However, the EPA does not agree with the commenter's statement that the compliance
date extension provisions of §63.481 (e) and §63.131 l(e) do not provide relief in this situation. A
compliance extension can be requested up to 120 days before the compliance date via §63.481(e)
or §63.131 l(e), or even later under the circumstances described in §63.481(e)(3) or
§63.1311(e)(3).
This comment did result in a small change to one sentence in §63.481(e) and
§63.131 l(e), which now reads as follows: "Requests for extensions shall be submitted no later
than 120 days prior to the compliance dates specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section, or as specified elsewhere in this subpart. except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this
section." This clarifies that the compliance date extension provisions apply to all compliance
dates, which includes the compliance dates established for new emission points or newly created
Group 1 emission points via §63.480(i)(2)(ii) and §63.1310(i)(2)(ii).
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-05/VIIIa-D-04 stated that the provisions proposed as
§§63.480(j) and 63.1310(j) are inadequate for excusing owners and operators from control
requirements during periods of non-operation. The commenter interpreted the proposed text in
§§63.480(j)(l) and 63.1310(j)(l) as providing an exemption from the substantive requirements,
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, and work practice requirements for affected sources
during periods of non-operation, but the commenter stated that this regulatory language was not
definitive on this issue. The commenter requested clarification that the emission limits from
2-5
-------
which a source is exempt during non-operation include substantive (e.g., control requirements),
as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and work practice requirements.
Response: The definition of emission limitation that is contained in section 302(k) of the
Clean Air Act is incorporated into both subparts U and JJJ. An emission limitation is described
as "a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis including any requirement
related to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and
any design equipment, work practice, or operational standard promulgated under this Act."
Based on this definition , the EPA confirms that an "emission limitation" includes control
requirements, as well as associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and work practice requirements.
Therefore, the EPA did not change the language in §§63.480(j)(l) and 63.1310(j)(l) in the
promulgated amendments to subparts U and JJJ.
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-02 requested that proposed §§63.480(j)(3) and
63.1310(j)(3) be revised, so that monitoring would not be required during periods of non-
operation when the owner or operator could demonstrate that a monitor would collect data that
would be invalid, or that the collection of data during a particular period of non-operation would
damage the monitor.
Response: Sections 63.480(j)(3) and 63.1310(j)(3) prohibit the owner or operator from
shutting down control or monitoring equipment during "periods of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction during times when emissions (or, where applicable, wastewater streams or residuals)
are being routed to such items of equipment..." First, the EPA believes that it is clear that
these paragraphs apply only during start-up, shutdown, and malfunction events. There is no
requirement to monitoring during periods of non-operation in either §63.480(j)(3) or
§63.1310(j)(3). Further, the EPA believes that emissions, or wastewater streams or residuals,
would not be routed to control or monitoring equipment during periods of non-operation, which
further clarifies why the provisions in §§63.480(j)(3) and 63.1310(j)(3) are not applicable during
periods of non-operation. Jii conclusion, the EPA believes that the proposed rule language in
§§63.480(j)(3) and 63.1310(j)(3) was clear, and it was not changed in the final rule.
2-6
-------
Applicability: Comments on Subpart JJJ
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-05/VIIIa-D-04 was concerned that the proposed
amendments to §§63.480(e) and 63.1310(e) implied that the EPA had reversed its decision,
which was apparent in the September 1996 promulgated requirements, that process units used to
produce elastomers (i.e., Group I Polymers and Resins, such as styrene-butadiene latex produced
by an emulsion process, or SBL) which are, in turn, used at least 50 percent of the time to
produce thermoplastics (i.e., Group IV Polymers and Resins, such as acrylonitrile butadiene
styrene latex resin, or ABS latex) would be subject to the requirements of subpart JJJ, but not to
the requirements of subpart U.
The commenter interpreted the interaction of the requirements in §§63.480(e) and
63.1310(e) of the rules promulgated in 1996 to mean that collocated elastomer production
operations would be regulated solely under subpart JJJ, as long as at least 50 percent of the
elastomer was used in the on-site production of thermoplastics. However, the commenter
interpreted the proposed amendments to §63.1310(e) to mean that the EPA was reversing this
decision. The commenter was particularly concerned that the last sentence in the proposed
amendments to §63.1310(e), which reads "All emission points from those unit operations that are
not subject to another subpart of this part shall be subject to this subpart," might be intended to
make collocated elastomers subject to subpart U.
Response: The EPA agrees that the language in §§63.480(e) and 63.1310(e) does not
clearly express the EPA's intent, which is that collocated equipment producing elastomers which
are used at least 50 percent of the time to produce thermoplastics should be subject to the
requirements of subpart JJJ, and should be exempt from the requirements in subpart U. The
proposed amendments were intended to clarify that if some emission points from a unit operation
(such as wastewater streams) are already subject to another MACT standard (e.g., the Hazardous
Organics NESHAP, or HON), then those emission points would not be subject to the subpart JJJ
requirements for such emission points as well as to the requirements for those emission points in
the earlier MACT standard. This clarification was attempted by stating that "emission points"
(instead of unit operations) subject to another (previously existing and in effect) MACT standard
"shall remain" subject to that other MACT standard. This proposed change was not intended to
make emission points involved in the production of elastomers that will be used to make
2-7
-------
thermoplastics (at least 50 percent of the time) subject to subpart U instead of subpart JJJ. In an
effort to alleviate the commenter's concern, the following changes were made to §63.1310(e), in
the final rule:
"Applicability determination of nonthermoplastic equipment included within the
boundaries of a TPPU. If a polymer that is not a thermoplastic product subject to this
subpait is produced within the equipment (i.e., collocated) making up a TPPU and at least
50 percent of that sakhpolymer is used in the production of a thermoplastic product
manufactured by the same sakKTPPU, then the unit operations involved in the production
of that said-polymer are considered part of the TPPU and are subject to this subpart, with
the following exception, except as specified in this paragraph (e). Any emission points
from such unit operations that are subject to another subpart of this part with an effective
date prior to September 5. 1996 and that are from said unit operations shall remain
subject to that other subpart of this part and are not subject to this subpart. All emission
points from tuosc unit operations tritit
-------
for storage vessels, process vents, back-end process operations (subpart U only), heat exchange
systems, and wastewater. The emission sources at existing affected sources that were not
impacted by this stay were equipment leaks and process contact cooling tower provisions at
facilities that produce PET using a continuous terephthalic acid high viscosity multiple end
finisher process. This action also stayed the compliance date for all emission sources at new
affected sources that had an initial start-up date after March 9, 1999.
In the June 30, 1999 Federal Register notice, the EPA indicated that new compliance
dates, which would provide a reasonable amount of time to comply with the amended
regulations, would be published when the final amendments to the regulations were promulgated.
As pointed out by the commenters, many of the rule changes that may impact compliance are
related to the provisions that are used to determine whether controls are required for a particular
emission point (i.e., whether an emission point is Group 1 or Group 2). In addition, the EPA
recognized that a change in compliance date also impacts certain reports that are required to be
submitted prior to the compliance date (discussed below). One commenter suggested a
compliance date of at least 9 months after promulgation of the amendments. Nine months may
be an adequate time period for owners or operators to re-evaluate whether controls are required
and install controls in the rare instances where the group status of an emission point changed due
to the amendments. However, the EPA does not believe that nine months would allow for these
actions plus the submission of reports by owners and operators and review of these reports by the
Administrator. The EPA concluded that one year is a "reasonable amount of time" for
accomplishment of these actions.
Therefore, the final amendments require that existing affected sources comply with the
non-equipment leak requirements by the date one year after publication of the promulgated
amendments. Specifically, the compliance dates in §§63.481(c), 63.481(d)(6), and 63.1311(c)
have been changed to the date one year after the publication date of the final amendments. In
addition, the final amendments at §§63.481(b) and 63.131 l(b) reflect the requirements of the
Clean Air Act that all new affected sources comply with the amended regulations on the
publication date or at initial start-up, whichever is later, with the following exception. New
affected sources that produce PET as their primary product are not required to comply with the
2-9
-------
equipment leak provisions in §63.1331 until February 27, 2001 or at initial start-up, whichever is
later.
One of two documents, the precompliance report or the emissions averaging plan (if
applicable), must be submitted prior to the compliance date. The dates that these reports were
originally required to be submitted were prior to the publication of the proposed amendments on
March 9, 1999. The EPA believes that owners or operators should have the opportunity to
submit, or resubmit, these reports after evaluating the final amendments. Therefore, the final
amendments change the required submission date of the emissions averaging plan to three
months after the publication date (nine months before the compliance date) and the due date of
the precompliance report to six months after the publication date (six months before the
compliance date). Even if no changes are needed to an emissions averaging plan or
precompliance report previously submitted, the final rule requires that the owner or operator
either re-submit the plan or report, or submit a notification that the previously submitted plan or
report is still valid. This will avoid any confusion regarding the owner or operator's intention.
Compliance Dates: Comments on Subpart JJJ
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-02 pointed out that the EPA is still actively working on a
response to petitioners' requests that ethylene glycol emissions from the process contact cooling
towers commonly used in PET production facilities, and ethylene glycol emissions from
equipment leaks, not be regulated. Commenter VIIIa-D-02 stated that the compliance date for
PET affected sources should be extended for one year after the EPA has taken final action
regarding PET process contact cooling towers and ethylene glycol equipment leaks, and
published notice of this final action in the Federal Register.
Response: First, the EPA agrees with the commenter that work is continuing on the
requirements for process contact cooling towers and equipment leaks that apply to PET affected
sources. The EPA also agrees that owners or operators should not be required to comply with
these provisions until final action is taken. The compliance date for PET process contact cooling
towers is February 27, 2001. This date was not affected by the proposed amendments. Also, on
June 8, 1999 (64 FR 30406), the EPA published a direct final rule extending the compliance date
for the equipment leak provisions, as they apply to PET production facilities, to February 27,
2-10
-------
2001. This extension became effective on August 9, 1999. Therefore, the EPA believes that no
additional action is needed with regard to the compliance dates for PET process contact cooling
towers and equipment leaks. Further, the EPA does not believe that ongoing work on these
provisions impacts the ability of an owner or operator to comply with the requirements for other
emission points, hi conclusion, no changes are being made in response to this comment.
2.3 DEFINITIONS
Definitions: Comments on Both Rules
Comment: Commenters VIIIa-D-03 and VIIIa-D-02 found the definition of "net positive
heating value" in the proposed amendments to be confusing and contradictory. Commenter
VIIIa-D-03 demonstrated their specific concern caused by this definition as follows:
Let HCHEM = heat value of the recovered chemical stream
Let HFLAME = minimum heat value required to ensure a stable flame
The difference between the heat value of the recovered chemical stream and the
minimum heat value required to ensure a stable flame is then represented by:
"CHEM " "FLAME
According to the second clause of the first sentence, HCHEM < HFLAME
However, if HCHEM < HFLAME , then HCHEM - HFLAME will always be less than zero
(i.e., negative)
It is impossible to meet the condition in the last sentence ("This difference must
have a positive value...)
Commenter VIIIa-D-03 stated that the EPA should either remove the definition, or revise
it so that its meaning is clear. Commenter VIIIa-D-02 stated that the definition was not
necessary, based on the fact that other NESHAP (including the HON) recognize the reclamation
of chemical streams for fuel value without attempting to specifically define "net positive heating
value." Commenter VIIIa-D-02 stated that owners and operators of HON affected sources must
demonstrate "in engineering terms appropriate to each individual situation that the recovered
stream has net positive heating value." This commenter felt that a single, all-inclusive definition
that works for every situation might not be possible for this term. This commenter stated that if
the EPA decided that a definition of "net positive heating value" was necessary, Title V
permitting authorities should also be given the latitude to give case-by-case recognition to
systems that can demonstrate recovery of chemicals for fuel value, but which do not satisfy the
criteria in the definition of "net positive heating value" in subparts U and JJJ. Commenter VHIa-
2-11
-------
D-02 also suggested that a more workable concept (and a safer one, as discussed below) would
be to require that, at a constant level of combustion device heat output, less commercial fuel is
used with the recovered stream entering the combustion device than would be needed without the
introduction of the recovered stream.
hi addition, commenter VIIIa-D-02 stated that the proposed definition was overly
restrictive, and claimed that it is not at all necessary for a stream to be able to support a stable
flame in order for that stream to recover large quantities of heat. Commenter VIIIa-D-02 also
argued that the proposed definition of "net positive heating value"counters safe practices in
design and operation of systems such as the air strippers used at the commenter's facility,
because chemical streams meeting the proposed definition of "net positive heating value" would
have organic concentrations greater than the composite lower flammable limit of the organics in
those streams.
Response: The addition of a definition of "net positive heating value" was an attempt to
provide additional clarification to the definition of "recovery device," which uses the term "net
positive heating value". However, the EPA recognizes that, as Commenter VIIIa-D-02 pointed
out, a single all-inclusive definition that works for this term might not be possible; therefore, the
entire term has been removed from the final amendments. Therefore, owners or operators of
subpart U and subpart JJJ affected sources must be able to demonstrate in engineering terms
appropriate to each individual situation that a recovered stream has net positive heating value.
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 suggested the following changes to the proposed
definition of "reconstruction":
Reconstruction means the replacement of or the addition of new components of an
affected source or of a previously unaffected stationary source that becomes an affected
source as a result of the replacement change, to such an extent that:
(1) The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed
capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable new affected source; and
(2) It is technologically and economically feasible for the reconstructed source to
meet the provisions of this subpart.
2-12
-------
Response: The suggestion raised by the commenter points out the inconsistency between
the proposed provisions of §§63.480(i)(2)(i) and 63.1310(i)(2)(i) and the proposed definitions of
reconstruction that were contained in §§63.482 and 63.1312. To summarize, the proposed
§§63.480(i)(2)(i) and 63.1310(i)(2)(i) stated that if any process change or addition that meets the
definition of reconstruction is made after June 5, 1995 (June 12, 1995 for subpart JJJ), the source
is a new affected source. However, the proposed definitions of reconstruction in §§63.482 and
63.1312 only addressed the "replacement", and not the "addition", of components.
The General Provisions for part 63 provide basic provisions applicable to all part 63
standards. In the General Provisions, replacements are clearly separated from additions. The
definition of reconstruction in the General Provisions only addresses the replacement of
components. In fact, the proposed definitions of reconstruction in §§63.482 and 63.1312 were
consistent with the definition of reconstruction in the General Provisions. In addition,
§63.5(b)(6) of the General Provisions says that "equipment added (or a process change) to an
affected source that is within the scope of the definition of affected source under the relevant
standard shall be considered part of the affected source and subject to all provisions of the
relevant standard established for that affected source." These excerpts from the General
Provisions clarify the EPA's intention regarding how replacements and additions are to be
addressed. In the proposed language for §§63.480(i)(2)(i) and 63.1310(i)(2)(i), these two
concepts were combined, thus creating confusion and making them inconsistent with the EPA's
policies regarding replacements and additions.
Therefore, rather than amending the definitions of reconstruction in §§63.482 and
63.1312, the EPA has revised the provisions in §§63.480(i)(2) and 63.1312(i)(2) to be consistent
with these proposed definitions. In the final amendments, §63.480(i)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) and
§63.1310(i)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), clearly distinguish how replacements of components are to
be considered and how additions are to be considered.
Definitions: Comments on Subpart U
Comment: Commenter VIII-G-01 stated that the proposed amendments to the definition
of "continuous front-end process vent" in subpart U would require that owners and operators re-
analyze their compliance status and revise their monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
2-13
-------
programs. The commenter stated that the proposed revision to this definition could also trigger
Title V permit/application revisions.
The commenter stated that the proposed revisions provide different criteria for meeting
the definition of continuous front-end process vent than the promulgated rule did. According to
the commenter, the promulgated version of subpart U required that a process vent stream have
both a concentration of 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and a flow rate of 0.005 standard
cubic meters per minute, while the proposed amendments to the definition "delete the flow rate
criteria altogether and... change the concentration criteria to 50 parts per million by weight." The
commenter believes that the proposed change would cause owners and operators to have to re-
evaluate vent streams that are known to be below either the flow rate or concentration cut-offs
(and thus did not meet the definition of continuous front-end process vents) to determine whether
or not they are below the new 50 parts per million by weight concentration cut-off. The
commenter stated that this might cause vent streams with very low flow rates (i.e., less than
0.005 standard cubic meters per minute) and streams that are well below the 50 ppmv
promulgated cutoff to become Group 2 continuous front-end process vents under the amended
definition, triggering monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that were not
applicable under the promulgated rule. This change might also cause them to have to revise their
Title V permits, or to re-submit Title V permit applications.
Response: The EPA agrees that amending the definition of continuous front-end process
vent as proposed could cause previously exempt vent streams to be considered Group 2
continuous front-end process vents. The EPA originally intended that the definition of
continuous front-end process vent mirror the HON definition of process vent, but inaccurately
incorporated this concept into the promulgated rule. Therefore, the promulgated amendments to
this definition maintain the criteria that were proposed on March 9, 1999, but the compliance
date for existing affected sources has been extended to one year after publication of the final
amendments in order to allow a reasonable compliance period for process vents affected in this
manner, as requested by the commenter.
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 stressed that the proposed amendment to the definition
of "elastomer product" in §63.482 (specifically, the separation of "polybutadiene rubber by
solution" and "styrene butadiene rubber by solution" into two different products) was
2-14
-------
problematic, in that, in accordance with the promulgated requirements, their stripping limit was
set based on stripping data collected on the combined products. The commenter stated that the
proposed separation of polybutadiene rubber/styrene butadiene rubber by solution into two
different elastomer products would force them to review their data and possibly establish new
stripping limits.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter. The two proposed products have been
re-combined to represent one type of "elastomer product" in the final rule.
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-06 stated that the EPA used overly broad language in the
proposed definition of "stripping", which excluded certain operations from the definition. The
proposed preamble (64 FR 11560, 11580) stated that the definition of stripping was largely based
on the promulgated definition of "stripping technology," except that it was intended to be more
specific about which processes would be considered to be stripping, and which would not. The
commenter stated that the proposed change could result in certain stripping processes (such as a
series of drum dryers which have devolatilization as their primary purpose) being excluded. The
commenter's main objection to the proposed definition was that the last sentence of the proposed
definition excluded "devolatilization that occurs in dryers, extruders, and other finishing
operations." The commenter suggested the following changes to the proposed definition of
stripping:
Stripping means the removal of organic compounds from a raw elastomer product. In the
production of an elastomer, stripping is a discrete step that occurs after the reactors and
before the dryers (other than those dryers with a primary purpose of devolatilization) and
other finishing operations. Examples of types of stripping include steam stripping, direct
volatilization, chemical stripping, and other methods of devolatilization. For the
purposes of this subpart, devolatilization that occurs in dryers (other than those dryers
with a primary purpose of devolatilization), extruders, and other finishing operations is
not stripping.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter, and has made the suggested changes in
the final rule.
2-15
-------
Definitions: Comments on Subpart JJJ
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-02 stated that, as proposed, the definition of "material
recovery section" makes it difficult to determine whether condensers which remove ethylene
glycol from vapor streams leaving PET polymerization vessels are part of the material recovery
section or part of the polymerization reaction section. The commenter pointed out that the first
sentence and the last two sentences of the proposed definition appeared to contradict one another.
The commenter recommended that the definition clearly state that contact and non-contact
condensers removing ethylene glycol from vapor streams coming out of polymerization vessels
are part of the polymerization reaction section.
Response: Because equipment accomplishing the recovery of ethylene glycol or the
separation of materials containing ethylene glycol is excluded from the material recovery section,
the EPA agrees that including "ethylene glycol" in the opening part of the definition is confusing
and does seem to contradict the final sentences of the definition. Therefore, "ethylene glycol"
was removed from the opening sentences of this definition. Finally, the EPA agreed with the
commenter that specifically stating that contact and non-contact condensers removing ethylene
glycol from vapor streams coming out of polymerization vessels would also clarify the definition,
and made this change in the final amendments to the rule.
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-05/VIIIa-D-04 was concerned that the definition of
"supplemental combustion air", which was included in the promulgated rules as of May 10, 1999
(as a result of the Direct Final Rule published on March 9, 1999 [64 FR 11536]), could be
interpreted as being overly broad and may require application of the oxygen correction factor
when air is to be added to exhaust streams for proper control device operation or for protection
from damage. Such an interpretation and the requirement to apply the oxygen correction would
adversely impact the commenter's ability to comply with the provisions of
§63.1316(c)(l)(iii)(A). Speaking to these provisions, the commenter stated that "the provisions
in §63.1316(c)(l)(iii)(A) are incorrect relative to the application of the oxygen correction factor."
The commenter provided two examples where air is added to exhaust streams controlled
by catalytic oxidizers to ensure proper operation and to prevent damage to the catalyst bed. First,
according to the commenter, catalytic oxidizers are designed to operate above a minimum flow
2-16
-------
rate. If the minimum flow rate is not maintained, proper mixing and distribution through the
catalyst bed will not occur. This can lead to reduced destruction efficiency and damaging
localized "hot spots" within the catalyst bed. Second, excessive catalyst bed temperatures can
occur when the heat content of the inlet stream increases. According to the commenter, higher
heat content of the inlet stream can result from either high concentrations of combustible material
or high specific heat of the material contained in the inlet stream.
The commenter explained that the catalytic oxidizers they planned on installing are
equipped to automatically add air to avoid the situations described above. The commenter
emphasized that the addition of air is not a constant or prevailing occurrence. According to the
commenter, properly designed and sized catalytic oxidizers operate without the addition of air at
the conditions expected to be most prevalent during normal operations.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the addition of air to ensure proper
operation and to avoid damage to control devices should not be considered supplemental
combustion air. The following sentence was added to the end of the definition of supplemental
combustion air: "Air required to ensure the proper operation of catalytic oxidizers, to include the
intermittent addition of air upstream of the catalyst bed to maintain a minimum threshold flow
rate through the catalyst bed or to avoid excessive temperatures in the catalyst bed, is not
considered to be supplemental combustion air."
2.4 EMISSION STANDARDS
Emission Standards: Comments on Subpart JJJ
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-03 asked what owners or operators of combined
emissions sources in which none of the emission streams could be classified as Group 1 were
expected to do to comply with the NESHAP. The commenter stated that §63.1313(b) does not
address this scenario. The commenter pointed out the complexity of the provisions for combined
vent streams, and stated that these provisions did not appear to address all possible scenarios
(e.g., when having batch process vents combined with continuous process vents in a regulated
section [such as raw materials preparation, material recovery, or polymerization reaction] which
has no Group status). The commenter suggested simplifying the requirements in §63.1313(b), to
allow owners or operators to have the option, at any time, of treating any combined vent stream
2-17
-------
as a continuous process vent subject to §63.1315, with the Group status determined for the
combined emissions after recovery devices but before control devices. Commenter VIIIa-D-03
stated that this approach would be environmentally sound, in that large combined vents (with a
total resource effectiveness, or TRE, of less than 1.0) would be subject to strict controls. The
commenter also pointed out the simplicity of this approach, in that it would avoid the need for
the owner or operator to evaluate multiple vent streams in complicated piping configurations.
Response If a combined emission stream has no Group 1 emission streams, the combined
emission stream could either have no emission streams requiring control or could have emission
streams subject to §§63.1316 through 63.1320. For the first case, there is no reason for an owner
or operator to evaluate the combined emission stream for control. For the second case, it is likely
that a combined vent stream containing Group 2 emission streams (e.g., a storage vessel) and
continuous process vents subject to §§63.1316 through 63.1320 would not meet the applicability
criteria of the TRE. Under such a scenario, the commenter approach would say that emissions
that are required to be controlled under the rule would no longer require control. Therefore, the
EPA has not changed the rule in response to this comment.
2.5 CONTINUOUS PROCESS VENT PROVISIONS
Continuous Process Vent Provisions: Comments on Subpart U
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 believed that the exemption promulgated under
§63.485(q)(l) should be expanded to exempt existing affected sources producing polybutadiene
and styrene butadiene rubber by solution from the Group 1 halogenated continuous process vents,
for the same reasons that existing affected sources producing butyl rubber, halobutyl rubber, and
ethylene propylene rubber by solution are exempted from the Group 1 halogenated continuous
front-end process vent requirements under certain conditions. The commenter stated that the
reasons given for exempting existing affected sources producing butyl rubber, halobutyl rubber,
and ethylene propylene rubber by solution (that even though halogenated catalyst may be used in
the process, the existing level of control was venting to a flare or boiler; that the cost associated
with the HON level of control was unreasonable for these sources; and that, due to widely
varying concentrations in the streams, it would be difficult to accurately determine halogen
2-18
-------
levels) also apply to existing affected sources producing polybutadiene and styrene butadiene
rubber by solution.
In addition, the halogenated catalysts used by the commenter are not listed HAP. The
commenter stated that Congress only gave the EPA authority to regulate listed HAP under Title
III of the Clean Air Act.
Response: The provisions in §63.485(q)(l) (as promulgated on September 5, 1996)
exempt existing affected sources producing butyl rubber, halobutyl rubber, and ethylene
propylene rubber using a solution process from the requirement to control hydrogen halides at the
exit of a combustion device. For each of these subcategories, the EPA determined that the floor
level of control did not include the control of these halogen halides at the exit of a combustion
device (see Basis and Purpose Document for Proposed Standards, May 1995, EPA-453/R-95-
006a, and Basis and Purpose Document for Final Standards, Summary of Public Comments and
Responses, June 1996, EPA-453/R-96-006b). For each case, the EPA was provided with facility-
specific information that led to the floor determinations. The EPA understands that the rationale
for the floor level for the ethylene propylene rubber subcategory may also apply to polybutadiene
rubber and styrene butadiene rubber by solution. However, the EPA has never been provided
with any facility-specific data that would support a conclusion that the floor level of control
would not include such control. In fact, the data originally submitted by polybutadiene/styrene
butadiene rubber by solution producers did not include emissions of hydrogen chloride (HC1) or
other hydrogen halides. Therefore, no change was made in response to this comment.
In response to the commenter's last point, the requirements that the commenter objects to
do regulate listed HAP. The halogenated catalysts or other halogenated compounds are
converted to listed HAP in some circumstances. For instance, HC1, which is emitted at the exit
of a device that is combusting chlorinated organics, is a listed HAP.
Combined Process Vent Provisions: Comments on Subpart JJJ
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-03 was concerned about the statement in §63.1318(a)
which indicated that "references to group determinations (i.e., total resource effectiveness)" in
the HON process vent provisions do not apply to PET and polystyrene affected sources. The
commenter pointed out that the HON has stricter requirements for Group 1 process vents than for
2-19
-------
Group 2 process vents, and that if the owner or operator was not able to take into consideration
the group status of a process vent, then the stricter requirements would always apply to that
process vent, regardless of its group status. The commenter recommended that the EPA remove
the statement which reads "references to group determinations (i.e., total resource effectiveness)
do not apply" from §63.1318(a). Alternatively, the commenter suggested that the EPA include
an exemption for process vents with emissions (on a percentage basis) less than a certain amount
of the total allowable emissions for a particular process section. In particular, the commenter
stated that such an exemption should apply to performance testing requirements and
requirements to keep records of and to report start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. The
commenter also stated that the EPA should allow a low flow rate exemption, to be consistent
with the HON process vent provisions.
Response: The process vents subject to §§63.1316 through 63.1320 are not subject to
the HON provisions, and the concept of "group status" does not apply for these process vents.
These requirements are not applied to individual process vents, but to all process vents in entire
sections of the process unit. The EPA included the statement that "references to group
determinations (i.e., total resource effectiveness) do not apply" in order to avoid confusion over
the use of the testing procedures in §63.116 which contain references to group determinations
and group status. This part of the rule has been consistent since the original proposal in 1995.
Opportunity to comment on this basic concept was provided at the time of the original proposal.
While the EPA is not accepting comments on this basic concept, following is a brief response to
the comment.
The EPA does not believe that an exemption for certain process vents subject to
§§63.1316 through 63.1320 is appropriate. The promulgated provisions are based on the fact
that the Polymer Manufacturing NSPS, which do not provide any exemptions for low emitting
process vents, was the basis for the MACT floor. Further, the promulgated provisions provide an
owner or operator with various compliance demonstration options, including a kilogram of HAP
per megagram of product limit, which allows the owner or operator to choose which process
vents are routed to a control device. Finally, the request to exempt certain process vents from
performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements does not recognize that the
2-20
-------
majority of requirements are related to the use of control devices (i.e., performance testing and
parameter monitoring), and are not related to the existence of individual process vents.
In response to the request for a flow rate exemption such as that which was used in the
HON, the EPA maintains that the definition of "continuous process vent" in subpart JJJ is
consistent with the HON definition of "process vent" in this regard. Neither the HON process
vent definition in §63.101 nor the subpart JJJ continuous process vent definition in §63.1312
contain a flow rate cutoff. The commenter may have been referring to the HON definition of
"Group 1 process vent," which does have a 0.005 scmm flow rate cutoff. However, as discussed
above, the process vent provisions for PET and polystyrene affected sources are based on the
Polymer Manufacturing NSPS, and not the HON process vent provisions. Therefore, the flow
rate cutoffs in the HON definition of "group 1 process vent" are not applicable to the process
vent provisions for PET and polystyrene affected sources in subpart JJJ. Also, as discussed
above for low-emitting vents, the commenter did not provide any data to support the request for a
flow rate cutoff. In conclusion, no changes were made to the regulation in response to this
comment.
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-03 stated that the requirements of §63.1318(c) extend
performance testing requirements to all vents in a process section subject to §63.1316, whether or
not the vent uses a control or recovery device. The commenter states that it is likely that process
sections subject to §63.1316 will have vents with negligible emissions and/or vents not ducted to
a control device. The commenter stated that in many cases these vents will have a TRE index
value greater than 4.0. The commenter requested that language be added to §63.1318(c) to
clarify that performance testing is not required for vents with a TRE index value greater than 4.0,
regardless of whether or not those vents are part of a process section subject to §63.1316.
Response: Process vents subject to §§63.1316 through 63.1320 are not subject to the
HON provisions, and the concepts of "group status" and TRE index value do not apply to these
process vents. The provisions of §63.1318(c) are expressed as emission limits in the format of
kilogram of HAP per megagram of polymer (PET/polystyrene) production. The commenter's
concern that the provisions of "§63.1318(c) extend performance testing requirements to all vents
in a process section subject to §63.1316, whether or not the vent used a control or recovery
2-21
-------
device" is true when an owner or operator chooses to comply with the kilogram per megagram
emission limits. The commenter is correct that performance testing is required to determine
emission rates for all process vents within a process section subject to §63.1316 when the owner
or operator chooses to comply with the kilogram per megagram emission limits. The EPA
cannot allow owners or operators to omit emissions from any process vents from the compliance
demonstration procedures. The final rule continues to require Method 18 tests to determine
emissions as part of complying with the kilogram per megagram emission limits of §63.1316.
2.6 BATCH PROCESS VENTS
Batch Process Vents: Comments on Both Rules
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 stated that owners and operators should be allowed to
determine the concentration of each organic compound containing halogen atoms at the recovery
device or process discharge, for the purposes of determining the mass loading limit (e.g., under
§63.488(h)). The commenter stated that the limit is a mass loading limit per vent (and not for
combined vents), and that an owner or operator should not be penalized for collecting and
reusing organic volatile organic compounds (VOC) by combining many process vents into a
common recovery system.
Response: While §§63.488(h) and 63.1323(h) do not indicate where the halogenation
status determination is to be performed, §§63.488(a)(2) and 63.1323(a)(2) specify that the
location for making the batch vent group determination is at the exit of the batch unit operation.
The purpose of the halogenated vent provisions is to reduce the hydrogen halides that are
created when halogenated organic compounds are routed to a combustion device. Therefore, the
important location for determining whether a vent stream is halogenated is prior to the stream
entering a combustion device. However, as noted above, the rules required the halogenation
determination at the exit of the unit operation before any recovery, recapture, or combustion
device are used to determine the group status. Therefore, any reduction in the mass emission rate
of halogen atoms that occurs in a recovery or recapture device would not be taken into account.
The EPA agrees with the commenter that this reduction should be considered. Therefore, in the
final amendments, §§63.488(h)(l) and 63.1323(h)(l) have been amended to specify that the
concentration of each organic compound containing halogen atoms be determined "at the exit of
the last recovery or recapture device."
2-22
-------
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 requested that the EPA edit §§63.487(a)(l)(ii) and
63.1322(a)(l)(ii) to allow halogenated batch front-end process vents to be routed to flares, if, as
allowed under proposed §§63.487(c)(2) and 63.1322(c)(2), a halogen reduction device is used to
reduce the halogen atom mass emission rate to less than 3,750 kg/yr.
Response: The EPA believes that the change discussed in the previous comment
eliminates the concern raised by this commenter. As discussed in the previous response,
§§63.488(h)(l) and 63.1323(h)(l) have been revised to specify that the halogenation status of a
batch process vent is determined after recovery or recapture devices. Therefore, if a recovery or
recapture device reduces the halogen atoms such that the vent stream would not be considered
halogenated, then the stream could be routed to a flare.
2.7 BACK-END PROVISIONS (SUBPART U ONLY)
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 stated that in §63.493, several affected sources are
exempted from the back-end process provisions, based on the fact that they produce only latex
products, liquid rubber products, or products produced in a gas-phased reaction process. The
commenter stated that an affected source may produce both rubber and latex products. In this
case, the latex products should still be excluded from the back-end provisions.
Response: The EPA agrees that §63.493 does not address the applicability of the back-
end process provisions to the production of latex products in the same affected source that also
produces elastomer products for which the back-end process provisions do apply. Since the
production of latex does not include the process unit operations (e.g., dewatering, extruding,
drying, etc.) that the back-end process provisions are designed to cover, the EPA does not intend
that the back-end process provisions apply to the production of any latex product. Therefore, the
following sentence has been added to §63.493 in final amendments: "If latex or liquid rubber
products are produced in an affected source that also produces another elastomer product, the
provisions of §§63.484 through 63.500 do not apply to the back-end operations dedicated to the
production of one or more latex products or to the back-end operations during the production of a
latex product."
2-23
-------
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 states that §63.494(a)(4) should apply to both new and
existing affected sources, and that nitrile butadiene latex (NBL) and styrene butadiene latex
(SBL) should be added to the group of products that are exempt from the back-end residual
organic HAP limitations. The commenter pointed out that in the September 5, 1996 promulgated
version of subpart U, the tables in the preamble to the rule (Tables 2 and 3) listed "no control"
for NBL and SBL back-end process emissions (61 FR 46910 and 46911). This exemption is not
indicated in the proposed amendments to subpart U, but the commenter believes that the
exemption should apply to NBL and SBL.
Response: While §63.493 exempts affected sources producing latex products from all the
back-end process provisions, the EPA agrees that it would be clearer if latex products are also
mentioned in §63.494(a)(4). Therefore, §63.494(a)(4) of the final rule has been amended to add
latex products, liquid rubber products, and products produced in a gas-phased reaction process to
the list of processes to which back-end process operation residual organic HAP limitations do not
apply.
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 requested that in either §63.498(d)(5)(i) or in table 6 of
subpart U, the EPA state specifically what type of "hourly records" owners or operators are
expected to keep to illustrate that monitors on flames are continuously operating and that a pilot
flame is continuously present at all flares during batch emission episodes. The commenter asked
whether the hourly record could be an instantaneous check once an hour, or if a record of
continuous compliance must be available for every hour. If a record of continuous compliance
must be kept for every hour, the commenter requested that the EPA provide some examples of
types of acceptable records for verifying continuous compliance with the monitoring and
operating requirements for flares.
Response: This comment pointed out a confusing cross-reference in the proposed
amendments, where §63.498(d)(5)(i) refers to the recordkeeping requirements for flares, as they
are listed in Table 6 of subpart U (Group 1 Batch Front-end Process Vents and Aggregated
Streams Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements). The correct reference
should have been to Table 8 (Summary of Compliance Alternative Requirements for the Back-
end Process Provisions), but since that table cross-references Table 3 of subpart G in the HON,
2-24
-------
§63.498(d)(5)(i) has been amended in the final rule to reference Table 3 of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart G, rather than Table 6 of subpart U.
This correction does not address, however, the commenter's concern regarding how an
owner or operator can document that a flare was continuously operating over a particular hour.
The back-end process vent monitoring provisions in §63.497(a)(2) specify that when a flare is
used, a device capable of continuously detecting the presence of a pilot flame is required.
Examples of such devices are thermocouples, an ultra-violet beam sensor, or an infrared sensor.
Table 3 of subpart G states that hourly records of whether the monitor was continuously
operating and whether the pilot flame was continuously present during each hour are required.
The EPA believes that a measurement or determination once per hour that the flare is operating
and that a pilot flame is present sufficiently indicates continuous compliance with the applicable
provisions. Therefore, some type of measurement or determination that the flare is operating and
that a pilot flame is present would need to be conducted once every hour. Any records of the
measurement or determination that the flare is operating and that a pilot flame is present would
be acceptable. There should be a record for each hourly measurement or determination. One
example of a type of measurement is using a thermocouple to monitor the temperature. A level
would be established that assures that the flare is operating and that a pilot flame is present. The
temperature would then be measured and recorded once every hour.
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 pointed out that the subscripts in Equation 26 in
§63.495(f) should be "mo" for "monthly," rather than "wk" for "weekly."
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's attention to detail, and has made the
change in the final rule.
2.8 WASTE WATER PROVISIONS
Wastewater Provisions: Comments on Both Rules
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-03 was concerned that §§63.1330(c) and 63.501 (b)
implied that different lists of HAP are considered to be "organic HAP" for the purposes of the
process wastewater versus the maintenance wastewater provisions in subparts U and JJJ. This
concern arose out of the language in §§63.1330(c) and 63.501(b), which stated that when
2-25
-------
§63.105 refers to "organic HAP," the definition of organic HAP in subpart JJJ or subpart U
(respectively) would apply. The commenter recommended that §§63.1330(c) and 63.501(b) be
made consistent with §§63.1330(b)(8) and 63.501(a)(10), by amending §§63.1330(c) and
63.501(b) to refer only to the organic HAP lists in subparts JJJ (Table 6, minus ethylene glycol)
and U (Table 5), respectively.
Response: Given the misinterpretation of the language of §§63.1330(c) and 63.501(b) by
this commenter, the EPA decided to amend these paragraphs, as well as §§63.1330(b)(8) and
63.501(a)(10) to clarify that the same compounds are subject to the process wastewater and
maintenance wastewater requirements. In addition, the EPA believes that ethylene glycol, which
is exempt from the process wastewater requirements in subpart JJJ via §63.1330(b)(8), should
also be exempt from the maintenance wastewater requirements. Therefore, the EPA has made
the changes to §63.1330(b)(8) and (c) and §63.501(a)(10) and (b) in the final amendments to
subparts JJJ and U to make these clarifications.
Wastewater Provisions: Comments on Subpart U
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 requested that §63.501(a)(3) be revised to clarify that
table 5 of subpart U applies, rather than table 9 of subpart G, for the purposes of the wastewater
provisions in subpart U. The commenter acknowledged that the definitions of "wastewater" and
"Group 1 wastewater" both make these distinctions, as does §63.501(a)(10), but stated that, since
§63.501(a)(3) is one of the "exceptions" listed under §63.501(a), further clarification would be
needed. The commenter suggested the following change to the second sentence in §63.501(a)(3):
"Owners and operators of new affected sources, as defined in this subpart, shall comply
with the requirements for existing sources in §§63.132 through 63.149. with the
exceptions noted in 63.501(a)(4) through (a)f23)."
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter's request. The final rule uses this
suggestion, with a small alteration in wording.
2-26
-------
2.9 EQUIPMENT LEAK PROVISIONS
Equipment Leak Provisions: Comments on Subpart JJJ
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-02 described the use of pumps in ethylene glycol service
for the manufacture of PET that are similar to those exempted for the manufacture of polystyrene
in §63.1331(a)(l) (i.e., light liquid pumps and agitator seals that are designed to leak process
fluid through the shaft sealing mechanisms for lubrication and cooling). The commenter stated
that large expenditures would be required in order to incorporate a leakless seal design for these
pumps in ethylene glycol service. The commenter explained that progressive cavity pumps are
used to feed TPA slurried in ethylene glycol to the esterification reactors, and that these pumps
have packing glands that need to pass approximately 1 gallon per day of fluid (e.g., ethylene
glycol) for lubrication. The commenter stated that the 1 gallon per day of ethylene glycol that is
leaked from these pump seals is caught by catch pans and is returned to the process on a daily
basis The commenter provided details about the cost of replacing these seals versus the expected
reduction in emissions that would be achieved if they were replaced. The commenter estimated
that installing a leakless seal design would reduce emissions by 300 Ib/yr at a cost effectiveness
of $ 166,000 per ton of HAP reduced The commenter requested that the EPA provide an
exemption for pumps in ethylene glycol service as was done in §63.1331(a)(l) for light liquid
pumps and agitator seals used to manufacture polystyrene.
Response: Since no amendments were proposed to the paragraph referred to by the
commenter, §63.1331(a)(l), in the March 9, 1999 action, the EPA was not seeking comments on
these provisions; therefore, they were not open to comments. However, following promulgation
of subpart JJJ on September 12, 1996, two groups petitioned the EPA to reconsider the
equipment leak standards contained in the promulgated rule as they pertained to PET production
facilities. The issue raised by the commenter was also raised by these petitioners. On June 8,
1999 (64 FR 30456), the EPA published a proposed denial of these petitions and requested
comments on the new equipment leak analysis. The EPA will address issues related to PET
equipment leaks raised by commenters on the proposed petition denial in a future action.
2-27
-------
2.10 GENERAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
General Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements: Comments on Both Rules
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-03 disagreed with the requirements in §§63.1335(b)(l)
and 63.506(b)(l) which stated that the owner or operator must demonstrate to the Administrator,
through a precompliance report or a supplement to the precompliance report, that a monitor
would be damaged during a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction, before the owner or operator
could turn off that monitor during the start-up, shutdown, or malfunction. The commenter stated
that monitoring data collected during a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction would not be relevant
to the compliance status of the source, and that this requirement imposed an unnecessary
recordkeeping and reporting burden on industry. In addition, commenter VIIIa-D-02 requested
that an additional criteria for not having to collect monitoring data during periods of start-ups,
shutdowns, or malfunctions. In addition to the above-mentioned criteria (that the owner or
operator must demonstrate to the Administrator that a monitor would be damaged during a start-
up, shutdown, or malfunction), commenter VIIIa-D-02 stated that the owner or operator should
not have to collect monitoring data "during periods of start-up, shutdown, malfunction, and non-
operation when such data would be invalid in terms of representing emission rates."
Response: The final procedures in §§63.506(b)(l) and 63.1335(b)(l) continue to require
that the owner or operator first submit a precompliance report or "supplement to a precompliance
report," demonstrating to the Administrator that the monitoring system would be damaged or
destroyed if not shut off during a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction. This requirement gives the
Administrator the opportunity to object to the inclusion of such a provision in the source's start-
up, shutdown, and malfunction plan, if such a provision seems to be unwarranted or
insufficiently supported in the precompliance report or supplement to the precompliance report.
As stated in the preamble to the proposed amendments (64 FR 11572), it is the EPA's position
that requiring monitoring during start-up, shutdown, and malfunction periods will provide the
EPA with more information concerning whether or not start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plans
were followed, and will provide the EPA with valuable information for assessing the adequacy of
a source's start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan for future situations. These changes strike a
balance between the EPA's decision to require that monitoring data be collected at all relevant
times and industry's concern that valuable monitoring equipment could be damaged during a
2-28
-------
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction. The final requirements in §§63.1335(b)(l) and 63.506(b)(l)
provide protection for monitoring equipment during periods of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction, while providing the EPA with assurance that monitoring equipment is not being
"shut off indiscriminately. Similarly, §§63.1335(b)(l) and 63.506(b)(l) continue to require that
monitoring data be collected, regardless of whether or not those data would be valid in terms of
representing emissions rates, for the same reasons described above.
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-02 requested that the term "excess emissions," as used in
§§63.1335(b)(l)(i)(A) and 63.506(b)(l)(i)(A) and defined in §§63.1310G')(4) and 63.480G')(4),
be defined more precisely. The commenter stated that "excess emissions" could be defined as
"emissions greater than those allowed by the emissions limitation which would apply during
operational periods other than start-up, shutdown, and malfunction," or that this phrase
("emissions greater than those allowed by the emissions limitation which would apply during
operational periods other than start-up, shutdown, or malfunction") replace the term "excess
emissions" in §§63.1335(b)(l)(i)(A) and 63.506(b)(l)(i)(A) in the final rule, since the term
"excess emissions" triggers recordkeeping requirements under §§63.1335(b)(l)(i)(A) and
63.506(b)(l)(i)(A) in the proposed rule.
Response: The EPA agrees that the suggested edit to the definition of "excess emissions"
in §§63.480(j)(4) and §63.1310(j)(4) is warranted. Therefore, in the final amendments, these
paragraphs state that excess emissions are "emissions greater than those allowed by the emissions
limitation which would apply during operational periods other than start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction."
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-03 stated that it was overly burdensome to require that
all of the information recorded under §§63.1335(b)(l)(i)(A) and (B) and 63.506(b)(l)(i)(A) and
(B) be reported with reports of start-ups, shutdowns, or malfunctions, as required under
§§63.1335(b)(l)(ii) and 63.506(b)(l)(ii). The commenter stated that this requirement was more
burdensome than, and inconsistent with, the reporting requirements in both the HON and the
General Provisions [§63.10(d)(5)(i)].
Response: The EPA agrees that reporting the information specified in
§§63.1335(b)(l)(i)(A) and (B) and 63.506(b)(l)(i)(A) and (B) in a start-up, shutdown, and
2-29
-------
malfunction report is more burdensome than the requirements in either the HON or the General
Provisions. Upon additional consideration, the EPA concluded that, while it is important that the
information specified in §§63.1335(b)(l)(i)(A) and (B) and 63.506(b)(l)(i)(A) and (B) be
recorded, it is not necessary that it be reported in order to make a determination whether the
source complied with the start-up, shutdown, or malfunction plan. Therefore, §63.506(b)(l)(ii)
and §63.1335(b)(l)(ii) have been revised to specify that the reports shall include the information
specified in §63.10(d)(5)(i).
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 disagrees with the requirement (found in
§§63.506(b)(l)(ii) and 63.1335(b)(l)(ii)) that the semi-annual start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction report must include the name, title, and signature of the owner or operator, or
another responsible official, certifying the accuracy of the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction
report.
Response: The requirement that the commenter is remarking upon was contained in the
promulgated rules, which were published in September 1996. The EPA did not request
comments on this requirement. This requirement is also contained in §63.10(d)(5)(i) of the
General Provisions for part 63. The EPA considers this verification of the accuracy of each
semi-annual start-up, shutdown, and malfunction report to be indispensable, and has not changed
this requirement in the final amendments to the rules.
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 disagreed with the requirement in §§63.506(e)(3)(i)
and 63.1335(e)(3)(i) to submit precompliance reports 12 months prior to the compliance date or
with the application for approval of construction or reconstruction for new affected sources. The
commenter acknowledges that supplements to precompliance reports can be submitted at a later
date if an initial precompliance report was developed and submitted according to
§§63.506(e)(3)(ix)(A) and 63.1335(e)(3)(ix)(A), but states that in "many large projects all the
details related to start-up, shutdown, and malfunctions; monitoring equipment; alternative control
options; parametric monitoring; and alternative monitoring have not been developed during the
application phase of the project."
2-30
-------
Response: The language proposed in §§63.506(e)(3)(ix)(B) and 63.1335(e)(3)(ix)(B)
was expressly created to allow the submittal of new requests or information, even if the initial
report did not include information related to the new information, in the instances listed in
§63.506(e)(3)(ix)(B), which cover all of the examples listed by the commenter (as quoted above).
Therefore, in the final rule, the EPA has not changed the precompliance report requirements in
response to this comment. Please note, however, that due to the changes in the compliance dates
discussed in section 2.2, the date that the precompliance report is due has changed.
precompliance reports are now due six months before the compliance date. This provides
another opportunity for owners or operators to submit a precompliance report.
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 stated that if the EPA intended, according to
§§63.480(i)(5) and 63.1310(i)(5), that only equipment configurations listed in the notification of
compliance status report could be exempt from being considered "process changes," then
§§63.506(e)(5)(i) and 63.1335(e)(5)(i) should state that all equipment configurations need to be
listed in the notification of compliance status report. The commenter suggested that the EPA
remove the phrase "documented in the Notification of Compliance Status Report required by
§63.506(e)(5)(i)" [or §63.1335(e)(5)(i)] from the language in §§63.480(i)(5) and 63.1310(i)(5).
Response: The EPA agrees that the notification of compliance status report provisions in
§63.506(e)(5) and §63.1335(e)(5) do not specify that equipment configurations and operating
conditions be documented. The intent of the language in §§63.480(i)(5) and 63.1310(i)(5) was
that minor process modifications not be considered process changes. Therefore, §§63.480(i)(5)
and 63.1310(i)(5) have been changed as follows:
. . . For purposes of paragraph (i) of this section, process changes do not include:
Process process upsets, unintentional process changes, and changes that do not
alter are within the equipment configuration and operating conditions documented
in trie iMotiiication or Compliance status report required oy ^u.
General Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements: Comments on Subpart JJJ
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-03 stated that these rules should not require a start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction plan for emission points that are complying with a subpart JJJ mass
emission per mass product limits (i.e., §63.1316) that would exhibit a TRE greater than 1.0 if
2-31
-------
TRE were applied. The commenter supported this recommendation by citing the proposed
requirements in §§63.1335(b)(l)(i)(C) and 63.506(b)(l)(i)(C), which indicate that records are not
required for Group 2 emission points during a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction, unless the
Group 2 emission point is included in an emissions average. The commenter pointed out that
there are numerous emission points with a TRE greater than 1.0, and that the proposed
requirements in §§63.1335(b)(l)(i)(A) and (B) and 63.506(b)(l)(i)(A) and (B) would require
industry to utilize considerable resources to develop start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plans
for emission points for which records would not be required to be kept, and that would "not have
significant impact on human health and the environment even in the event of startups, shutdowns
and malfunctions."
The commenter suggested that the EPA add the following language (presumably at the
end of §§63.1335(b)(l)(i) and 63.506(b)(l)(i)) to the final rules:
Records specified in paragraphs (b)(l₯H(A) through (b)(l)(T)(B) of this section are not
required if they pertain solely to emission points in a regulated section that would
otherwise be considered Group 2 based on engineering calculations.
Response: As discussed in section 2.5 of this document, process vents subject to the
mass emission per mass product limits are not subject to the HON provisions, and, therefore, the
concepts of Group 2 and TRE do not apply for these process vents. These provisions require that
the emissions from all process vents in each specified section (i.e., material recovery section,
polymerization reaction section, and raw materials preparation section) of the process unit be
considered in determining compliance with the applicable limitation. Therefore, the EPA
believes that it is appropriate that the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan be consistent with
the emission limitation in this regard. Therefore, no change was made in response to this
comment.
2.11 THE TABLES
The Tables: Comments on Both Rules
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 pointed out that the "yes" in Table 1 of subparts U and
JJJ for whether or not §63.1(a)(10) (which states that all time periods will be measured in
2-32
-------
"calendar days," even if the word "calendar" is absent, unless otherwise noted in another
applicable requirement) applies to subparts U and JJJ seems to contradict the provisions in
§§63.502(a)(2) and 63.1334(a)(2), which allow the owner or operator to define their own
"operating day" in their notification of compliance status report.
Response: The EPA does intend for the term "day" to mean "calendar days," whether or
not the term "calendar" is absent, unless other applicable requirements, such as those found in
§§63.502(a)(2) and 63.1334(a)(2), say otherwise. Therefore, the EPA has not changed this
portion of Table 1 in subpart U or JJJ, in the final rule.
Comment: Commenter VIIIa-D-03 suggested that the EPA revise Table 1 in subpart U
and Table 1 in subpart JJJ, to clearly state that the immediate start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction reports required under §63.10(d)(5)(ii) do not apply to Polymers and Resins I and IV
facilities, pointing out that the EPA recently amended the HON in a similar manner (64 FR
20189, April 26, 1999).
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has changed Table 1 in the final
amendments to subparts U and JJJ, by adding an extra row for §63.10(d)(5)(ii), saying that
§63.10(d)(5)(ii) does not apply to subpart U (or JJJ), and by amending the row for §63.10(d)(5),
so that it applies to §63.10(d)(5)(i) only.
The Tables: Comments on Subpart U
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-04 states that hexane, toluene, and xylenes should not be
checked for SBL and SBRE in Table 5 (Known HAP Emitted from the Production of Elastomer
Products) of subpart U.
Response: The EPA agrees that no information is available that suggests hexane, toluene,
or xylenes are used and emitted from affected sources that produce SBL or SBRE; however,
these HAP were inadvertently checked in Table 5 previously. In the final amendments, the EPA
has deleted the checks for these pollutants for SBL and SBRE.
In addition, while re-examining the HAP listed in Table 5 of subpart U, the EPA realized
that carbon disulfide was not listed for SBRE. Clearly, the EPA intended that carbon disulfide be
an organic HAP subject to control under subpart U, as §63.500 is dedicated to carbon disulfide
2-33
-------
emissions from SBRE producers. For this reason, Table 5 of subpart U has also been revised to
include carbon disulfide, which is checked for SBRE.
The Tables: Comments on Subpart JJJ
Comment: Commenter VIII-D-05/VIIIa-D-04 states that 1,3-butadiene should not be
checked for ASA/AMSAN in table 6 (Known HAP Emitted from the Production of
Thermoplastic Products) of subpart JJJ.
Response: This HAP (1,3-butadiene) was mistakenly checked in Table 6 for
ASA/AMSAN in the September 12, 1996 final rule. In the promulgated amendments to subpart
JJJ, this error has been corrected.
2-34
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO 2
EPA-453/P-99-001
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air ]
(NESHAP) for Polymer and Resin (Groups I and F\
Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Am<
'ollutants
/) Summary of
sndments
7. AUTHOR(S)
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Emission Standards Division (Mail Drop 13)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION
NO
5 REPORT DATE
December 1999
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
68-D6-0010
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT
This document contains a summary of public comments received on amendments to NESHAP for Polymer
and Resin (Groups I and IV) (40 CFR 63, subparts U and JJJ), which were proposed on March 9, 1999 (64
FR 1 1560). This document also provides the EPA's response to each comment, and outlines the changes
made to these regulations in response to public comments.
17 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution Control
Emission Reduction
Environmental Protection
Hazardous Air Pollutants
1 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Hazardous air pollutants
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
20 SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
c COSATI Field/Group
21 NO. OF PAGES
32
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Re>. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |