United States Office of Air Quality EPA-450/3-90-019
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards December 1990
Agency Research Trianole Park NC 27711
Air
Polymer
Manufacturing
Industry -
Enabling Document
-------
EPA-450/3-90-019
POLYMER MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRY
ENABLING DOCUMENT
Prepared By
Emissions Standards Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1990
U.S. Environmental Protection
Region 5, library (PI-12J*
77 West Jackson Boutovarrf, 12th Floor
Chicago, JL 60604-3590
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division
of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. The purpose of this document is to
provide information in a summary form but not to indicate the
intent of any EPA decisions. Copies of this report are available
through the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park NC 27711, or from
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield VA 22161.
ftif-JflJ
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES Vl
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REGULATION 2-1
Process Emissions 2-3
Polypropylene and Polyethylene
Facilities 2-3
Polystyrene 2-25
Poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) 2-28
Equipment Leaks of VOC Emissions
(Fugitive Emissions) 2-34
SECTION 3 GENERAL PROVISIONS 3-1
Circumvention 3-2
Modification 3.3
Reconstruction 3.5
Malfunction 3.7
SECTION 4 REGULATIONS FOR THE POLYMER MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRY 4-1
§60.560 Applicability and Designation
of Affected Facilities 4-2
§60.561 Definitions 4-10
§60.562-1 Standards: Process Emissions 4-22
§60.562-2 Standards: Equipment Leaks of VOC .... 4-35
§60.563 Monitoring Requirements 4-36
§60.564 Test Methods and Procedures ........ 4-40
§60.565 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements . . 4-53
§60.566 Delegation of Authority ... 4-63
iii
-------
SECTION 5 LISTS OF SOURCES AFFECTED 5-1
Polypropylene Producers 5-2
High Density Polyethylene Producers 5-3
Low Density Polyethylene Producers 5-4
Polystyrene Producers 5-5
Poly(ethylene terephthalate) Producers 5-7
SECTION 6 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR POLYMER MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRY (40 CFR 60, Subpart ODD) 6-1
APPENDIX A LIST OF OAQPS CONTACTS
APPENDIX B REPRINT OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS FROM
FEDERAL REGISTER
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Section 2
2A
2B
2C
Section 4
1
Initial Decisionmaking for Determining
Which Polypropylene and Polyethylene
Process Sections Are Affected Facilities
Subject to the Standards
Continuous
Controlled
Individual
Emissions - Separation of
from Uncontrolled Emissions and
Stream Exemptions
Decisionmaking Process for Uncontrolled
Continuous Emissions from Polypropylene and
Polyethylene Affected Facilities
Decisionmaking Process for Continuous Emissions
Already Controlled at Polypropylene and
Polyethylene Affected Facilities
Decisionmaking Process for Intermittent
Emissions from Polypropylene and Polyethylene
Affected Facilities
Paoe
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-15
2-17
Decisionmaking Process for Uncontrolled
Continuous Emissions from Polypropylene and
Polyethylene Affected Facilities
Decisionmaking Process for Continuous Emissions
Already Controlled at Polypropylene and
Polyethylene Affected Facilities
4-27
4-28
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Section 2
1
Section 4
1
2
3
Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected
Facilities with September 30, 1987,
Applicability Date ,
Maximum Uncontrolled Threshold Emission Rates for
Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
with September 30, 1987, Applicability Date . . .
Maximum Uncontrolled Threshold Emission
Rates for Poly(ethylene terephthalate)
Affected Facilities
Summary of PET Standards
Page
2-5
2-8
2-29
2-31
Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
with September 30, 1987, Applicability Date . .
Maximum Uncontrolled Threshold Emission Rates .
4-5
4-7
Procedure for Determining Control and Applicable
Standard for Continuous Emissions from New,
Modified, or Reconstructed Polypropylene and
Polyethylene Affected Facilities 4-25
-------
Section 1 Introduction
The EPA has promulgated standards that were proposed in September
1987 and in January 1989 for the polypropylene, polyethylene,
polystyrene, and poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) source categories,
which are collectively referred to as the polymer manufacturing industry
for simplicity. This Polymer Manufacturing Industry Enabling document
is a compilation and presentation of pertinent information regarding the
Polymer Manufacturing Industry NSPS rulemaking in a simple, easy to
understand format. It is intended to assist EPA enforcement and other
personnel who will implement these regulations and will need to respond
to comments and questions on them. In addition, this document should be
of assistance to those who are regulated by this NSPS. Any comments on
this document may be sent to Fred Dimmick, Chief, Regulations
Preparation Section (MD-13); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Section 2 presents the summary of the standards for each of the
source categories. It summarizes the applicability, exemptions, control
requirements, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the
standards. It presents a brief synopsis designed to be useful in a
quick determination of whether any facility is subject to the rules or
not. Enforcement/compliance personnel, however, should carefully read
the other pertinent sections of the published regulations before making
a final determination.
Section 3 presents three important sections of the general
provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 60) which
relate to NSPS requirements; §60.12, Circumvention; §60.14,
1-1
-------
Section 2 Summary of Regulation
This section presents a summary of the regulation for the polymer
manufacturing industry. The polymer manufacturing industry regulations
apply to four major polymer types and their copolymers. The four major
polymer types are polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene, and
poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET). The regulations apply to both
process emissions and equipment leaks (fugitive emissions) for all of
these polymers and their copolymers, except for expandable polystyrene
and PET facilities. The regulations control only equipment leaks from
expandable polystyrene facilities; they do not control process
emissions. In contrast, the regulations control only process emissions
from PET facilities; they do not control equipment leaks from PET
facilities.
The process emission standards affect both continuous and
intermittent emissions at polypropylene and polyethylene facilities.
Only continuous process emissions are controlled at polystyrene and PET
facilities.
This section is divided into two major parts. The first part
discusses the rule as it applies to process emissions (both continuous
and intermittent). In this part, the process emissions rules are
reviewed first for polypropylene and polyethylene facilities (page 2-3),
then for polystyrene facilities (page 2-25), and lastly for PET
facilities (page 2-28). As noted above, there are no process emission
standards for expandable polystyrene plants.
The second part of this section discusses the rule as it applies
to equipment leaks of VOC (fugitive emissions) (page 2-34). The
standards of performance cover equipment leaks of VOC emissions within
2-1
-------
polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene (including expandable
polystyrene), and their copolymer manufacturing plants. As noted above,
the equipment leak standards do not cover equipment in PET or PET
copolymer manufacturing plants.
The information is presented primarily in a question and answer
format. This format was selected because it was felt to be the best way
to convey the intricacies associated with the final rule. We have asked
(and answered) the most likely questions that will arise to help clarify
the regulations for those affected by the polymer manufacturing industry
regulations. Other questions may arise that are not readily answered in
this document. Should such questions arise, the reader can contact one
of the persons listed in Section 6 of this document for further
guidance.
2-2
-------
I. PROCESS EMISSIONS
A. Polypropylene and Polyethylene Facilities
1. Applicability
Ql. Do the process emission standards apply to all newly
constructed, modified, or reconstructed plants that produce
polypropylene and polyethylene?
A. No. These standards only cover those polypropylene and
polyethylene plants (newly constructed, modified, or
reconstructed) that use a continuous production process.
Polypropylene and polyethylene plants that use a batch
production process are not covered bv these standards.
However, the intent of the standards is to cover all types
of continuous processes that produce polypropylene and
polyethylene.
In addition, the standards cover those plants that produce
polypropylene copolymers and polyethylene copolymers using a
continuous process. (See Section 4 of this report for the
definitions of these polymers and their copolymers.)
Q2. What is the definition of affected facility for process
emissions from plants producing polypropylene, polyethylene,
or their copolymers?
A. The definition of affected facility for process emissions is
process section, which is defined in §60.561 (see page 4-18
of this document). Five process sections have been
identified, which are typically found at any polypropylene,
polyethylene, or polypropylene or polyethylene copolymer
manufacturing plant. These five process sections are:
1. raw materials preparation section;
2. polymerization reaction section;
3. material recovery section;
4. product finishing section; and
5. product storage section.
Except as discussed in Question 3, these are the affected
facilities for both continuous and intermittent emissions.
Q3. Are all five process sections affected facilities for all
polypropylene and polyethylene plants?
A. The answer to this question depends on when the process
section was newly constructed, modified, or reconstructed.
For polypropylene and polyethylene production plants that
are constructed, modified, or reconstructed after September
30. 1987, and on or before January 10. 1989. only some of
the process sections are affected facilities. The process
2-3
-------
sections that are affected facilities depends on the type of
production process being used at the plant. In addition,
both continuous and intermittent emissions may not need to
be controlled. The process sections (and the type of
emissions) that are affected facilities, and thus are to be
controlled, are identified by an "X" in Table 1.
For polypropylene or polyethylene production plants that are
newly constructed, modified, or reconstructed after January
10- 1989. all five process sections (for both continuous and
intermittent emissions) are affected facilities, regardless
of the type of production process being used.
Q4. What is the applicability date for polypropylene and
polyethylene affected facilities?
A. Unlike most other standards, this standard has two
applicability dates. The applicability date depends on when
the process section is newly constructed, modified, or
reconstructed and, in some instances, on the type of
production process.
1. September 30. 1987
As noted in the response to Question 3, only some process
sections in polypropylene or polyethylene plants that are
newly constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
September 30, 1987, and on or before January 10, 1989, are
affected facilities. The process sections (and the type of
emissions) that are affected facilities for these plants,
and the type of emissions to be controlled, are identified
by an "X" in Table 1. The applicability date for the
affected facilities identified by an "X" in Table 1 is
September 30, 1987.
2. January 10. 1989
For any polypropylene or polyethylene process section that
is constructed, modified, or reconstructed after January 10,
1989, the applicability date is January 10, 1989, for each
affected facility, regardless of the type of continuous
production process being used.
Q5. If a process section (and its emissions) is marked with an
• —• in Table 1, is that process section and its emissions
exempt from the standards?
A. No. Process sections (and their emissions) that are marked
with an "--" in Table 1 become affected facilities if they
are newly constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
January 10, 1989. The applicability date for these process
sections is January 10, 1989. Thus, anv process section
that is newly constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
January 10, 1989, becomes subject to these standards.
2-4
-------
Table 1. Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities with
September 30, 1987, Applicability Date
Emissions
Polymer Production Process
Polypropylene Liquid phase
Process Section
Raw Materials Preparation
Material Recovery
Polymerization Reaction
Product Finishing
Product Storage
Continuous Intermittent
X
X
X X
X
Polypropylene Gas Phase
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Product Storage
Low Density
Polyethylene
Low Density
Polyethylene
High Density
Polyethylene
High Density
Polyethylene
High Density
Polyethylene
High Pressure Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Product Storage
Low Pressure . Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Gas Phase Product Finishing
Product Storage
Liquid Phase Slurry Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Product Storage
Liquid Phase Solution Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
"
X X
X
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Product Storage
MOTE:
"X" denotes that that process section is an affected facility for continuous or
intermittent emissions or both, as shown, which has a September 30, 1987, applicability
date.
"--" denotes that that process section is not considered an affected facility for
continuous or intermittent emissions or both, as shown, if the process section is
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after September 30, 1987, and on or before January
10, 1989. These process sections are affected facilities if they are constructed,
modified, or reconstructed after January 10, 1989.
2-5
-------
Q6. What happens if an owner or operator of a production process
that has been newly constructed, modified, or reconstructed
after September 30, 1987, and on or before January 10, 1989,
does not believe that his or her process is reasonably
represented by the processes listed in Table 1?
A. After the January 10, 1989, Federal Register notice was
published, the Agency received several comments that called
into question the representativeness of the model plants
used to develop the standards that were proposed on
September 30, 1987, in comparison to actual production
processes. For example, one commenter stated that a liquid
phase, solution process is used to produce low density
polyethylene. None of the model plants took this
combination of product and production process into account.
A liquid phase solution process is a low pressure process,
but is not a gas phase process, which was the basis for the
model plant for low density polyethylene using a low
pressure process. Thus, the owner or operator does not have
a production process match among the low density
polyethylene model plants.
Since the affected facilities that have a September 30,
1987, applicability date are determined by the type of
production process (e.g., liquid phase, gas phase), the
final rule requires each owner or operator to identify the
product/production process combination from among those
listed in Table 1 to apply to his or her own particular
process [§60.560(b)(l)(11)]. This procedure establishes the
affected facilities and the emissions that are subject to
the standards for production processes that have been newly
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after September 30,
1987, and on or before January 10, 1989.
This provision [§60.560(b)(l)(ii)] addresses those
situations where existing product/production process
combinations are not covered by any of the model plants
(i.e., the various product/production process combinations
shown in Table 1). For such situations, the selection
should be guided by identifying the model plant whose
emissions and their characteristics most closely matches the
emission stream characteristics of the owner's or operator's
particular product/production process. Since, in the
example cited by the commenter, the emission characteristics
are similar to those of the liquid phase, solution process
used to produce high density polyethylene, that model plant
should be selected by the owner or operator for determining
the affected facilities and the emissions to be controlled.
This provision is not intended to allow anyone to pick and
choose any model plant for identifying the affected
facilities and emissions to be controlled. For example, an
owner or operator that produces polypropylene using a gas
phase process is to use that model plant, even if
2-6
-------
modifications have been made to the process that result in a
different process configuration or emission streams. In
other words, if an owner or operator has a product/
production process that is listed in Table 1, then the owner
or operator is to use that model plant for determining the
affected facilities and the emissions that are subject to
control regardless of how well the process matches that used
to develop the particular model plant.
2. Exemptions
Q7. Are there exemptions provided for the polypropylene and
polyethylene standards?
A. Yes. There are three (3) types of exemptions. Each is
discussed below.
1. Individual affected facilities with uncontrolled
emission rates below specified uncontrolled threshold
emission rates are exempt from the standards. These
rates are shown in Table 2. This exemption applies
only to affected facilities that are constructed.
modified, or reconstructed after September 30. 1987.
and on or before January 10. 1989.
2. Individual vent streams that emit continuous emissions
with uncontrolled annual emissions of less than 1.6 Mg
are exempt from the standards.
3. Individual vent streams that emit continuous emissions
with a weight percent TOC of less than 0.10 are exempt
for the standards.
Q8. How is "uncontrolled emission rate" defined?
A. "Uncontrolled emission rate" refers to the emission rate of
a vent stream that vents directly to the atmosphere and to
the emission rate of a vent stream to the atmosphere that
would occur in the absence of any add-on control devices,
but after any material recovery devices that constitute part
of the normal material recovery operations in a process line
where potential emissions are recovered for recycle or
resale.
Q9. Regarding the uncontrolled threshold emission rate exemption
for individual affected facilities identified in answer to
Question 7, is an affected facility that is exempted based
on its uncontrolled emission rate permanently exempted?
A. No. There are two scenarios that may bring such an affected
facility under the standards. First, if the emissions from
the affected facility exceeds the uncontrolled emission rate
2-7
-------
Table 2. Maximum Uncontrolled Threshold Emission Rates
Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
with September 30, 1987, Applicability Date'
for
Production Process
Process Section
Uncontrolled
Emission Rate,
kg TOC/Hg product
Polypropylene,
liquid phase process
Polypropylene,
gas phase process
Lou Density Polyethylene,
high pressure process
Low Density Polyethylene,
low pressure process
High Density Polyethylene,
liquid phase slurry process
High Density Polyethylene,
liquid phase solution process
High Density Polyethylene,
gas phase process
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Product Storage
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Production Finishing
Raw Materials Preparation
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Product Finishing
0.1Sb
O.U*,0.24e
0.19*
1.57*
0.12*
0.02*
0.41*
e
e
e
e
0.05f
0.03*
0.01*
0.25*
0.11*
0.41*
0.24'
0.16e
1.6S1
0.05f
0.031
0.01*
Uncontrolled emission rate" refers to the emission rate of a vent stream that vents directly
the atmosphere and to the emission rate of a vent stream to the atmosphere that would occur •
the absence of any add-on control devices but after any material recovery devices that const-
~L2rJ * "° «t«"«l recovery operations in a process line where potential emissions i
recovered for recycle or resale.
Emission rate applies to continuous emissions only.
Emission rate applies to intermittent emissions only.
Total emission rate for non-emergency intermittent emissions from raw materials preparation
reaCti°n' material recovery, product finishing, and product storage process '
e See footnote d.
Emission rate applies to both continuous and intermittent emissions.
Emission rate applies to non- emergency intermittent emissions only.
2-8
-------
cutoff level at some later date, then that affected facility
is subject to the standards. Second, if that affected
facility is modified or reconstructed after January 10,
1989, then the affected facility is subject to the
standards.
Q10. If an individual vent stream meets either the low annual
emissions exemption or the weight percent exemption, is it
permanently exempted?
A. No. If the affected facility from which the vent stream in
question is later modified or reconstructed such that the
emissions or TOC concentration increases above the exemption
level for which the stream was originally exempted, then
that stream becomes subject to the standards at that time.
Qll. Do these exemptions apply to intermittent emissions?
A. Only the uncontrolled threshold emission rate exemption for
individual affected facilities, which was identified in the
answer to Question 7, is applicable to intermittent
emissions, as identified in Table 1. There are no
individual stream exemptions for intermittent emissions
based on annual emissions or weight percent TOC.
Q12. Are there any other exemptions for intermittent emissions?
A. Yes. The standards exempt emergency vent streams from
control requirements. This exemption is further explained
in the answer to Question 75, which is found in Section 3 of
this document.
Q13. Are emissions that are already controlled by existing
control devices exempt from the standards?
A. No. However, emissions (continuous or intermittent) from
modified or reconstructed affected facilities that are
already controlled by an existing control device and that
have uncontrolled emission rates greater than the
uncontrolled threshold emission rates identified in Table 1
are exempt from the requirements of §60.562-1 unless and
until the existing control device is modified,
reconstructed, or replaced.
Q14. Do the individual stream exemptions apply to streams that
are already being controlled?
A. No.
3. Standards
Q15. What are the standards for continuous emission streams?
2-9
-------
A. Except as discussed in the answer to Question 20 below, all
continuous emission streams that have been determined to
require control are to be reduced bv 98 percent or to a
concentration of 20 ppmv. whichever is less stringent.
However, there are two specified conditions where the
standard can be met:
1. If a flare is used that meets certain specified
operating conditions, and
2. if a boiler or process heater with a design heat input
capacity of 150 million Btu/hour or greater is used,
provided the vent stream is introduced into its flame
zone.
In some instances, the standards require only that the
continuous emissions be vented to an existing control device
at the plant site without regard to the destruction or
control efficiency of the control device. (For a related
discussion, see Question 20.)
Q16. What are the standards for Intermittent emissions?
A. Intermittent emissions are to be controlled by either
combusting them in a flare or in an incinerator, boiler, or
process heater.
If a flare is used, there are certain requirements
concerning visible emissions, flame presence, and flame
stability.
If an incinerator is used, the standards simply require that
the emissions, are vented to the incinerator.
If a boiler or process heater is used, the emissions are
required to be introduced into the flame zone of the boiler
or process heater.
Q17. Which continuous and intermittent emissions from
polypropylene and polyethylene affected facilities are
required to be controlled?
A. The procedures for determining which polypropylene and
polyethylene process emissions are to be controlled are
fairly complex. Five flow diagrams, which are presented as
Figures 1 through 3, illustrate these procedures. The
purpose of these figures is to provide only an overview of
the determination procedures for polypropylene and
polyethylene process emissions, and do not contain specific
details found in the final rule. The following paragraphs
summarize each figure, some of which repeat some of the
information discussed above.
2-10
-------
Figure 1 initiates the determination procedure for each
process section. Through the procedures shown in this
figure, affected facilities are identified and separated
according to their applicability dates (September 30, 1987,
and January 10, 1989).
This figure also includes the exemption step provided to
affected facilities with an applicability date between
September 30, 1987, and January 10, 1989 (see Block 1.6).
For process sections that are identified affected facilities
subject to the standard, Figure 1 directs the user to Figure
2A for continuous emissions and to Figure 3 for intermittent
emissions.
Figure 2A is the first of three flow diagrams applicable to
continuous emissions. The first step in Figure 2A separates
those continuous emission streams that are uncontrolled from
those that are controlled in an existing control device.
This is necessary as the determination procedure is
different depending on whether the emission streams are
already being controlled. If they are controlled, the flow
diagram directs the user to Figure 2C. For uncontrolled
continuous emission streams, Figure 2A continues by showing
the exemptions provided for individual emission streams.
Once qualifying individual emission streams are exempted,
the user is directed to Figure 2B.
Figure 2B outlines the procedures for combining nonexempt
uncontrolled continuous emission streams and determining
which emission streams are to be controlled. This figure
corresponds to the steps detailed in Table 3 in the final
rule (see page 4-25 of this document). An important feature
of the rule is the "loop" provided between Blocks 2B.12 and
2B.3. Uncontrolled emission streams that remain
uncontrolled after passing through this determination
procedure are still subject to control in the future as new
process sections become affected facilities and as existing
control devices are modified, reconstructed, or replaced.
(For related discussions, see Questions 28 through 34.)
Figure 2C outlines the procedure for handling emissions that
are already being controlled. Note that for these emissions
there are no individual stream exemptions as for
uncontrolled emission streams. The stream characteristics
of the inlet stream to the control device are used first to
calculate the calculated threshold emission (CTE) level and
second to compare with the CTE level (Block 2C.2). Also
note that uncontrolled emission streams are combined with
controlled emission streams in one of two ways. First, if
the controlled stream is to meet the standards the next time
the control device is modified, reconstructed, or replaced
(Block 2C.4K any uncontrolled emission streams in the same
weight percent range as the controlled stream are also to be
controlled to meet the standards. Second, if the controlled
2-11
-------
BEGIN HERE EACH TIME A PROCESS
SECTION IS CONSTRUCTED, MODIFIED,
OR RECONSTRUCTED.
WAS PROCESS SECTION CONSTRUCTED,
MODIFIED, OR RECONSTRUCTED
AFTER SEPTEMBER 30, 1987?
1.1
YES
WAS PROCESS SECTION CONSTRUCTED,
MODIFIED, OR RECONSTRUCTED
AFTER JANUARY 10, 1989?
1.3
YES
NO
PROCESS SECTION
NOT AN AFFECTED
FACILITY
1.2
NO
1
IS PROCESS SECTION (AND
ITS EMISSIONS) IDENTIFIED
IN TABLE 1 OF THE RULE AS
AN AFFECTED FACILITY?
1.4
YES
YES
NO
ARE UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS
GREATER THAN THE UNCONTROLLED
THRESHOLD EMISSION RATE
IN TABLE 2 OF THE RULE?
i.s
GO TO FIGURE 2A, BLOCK 2A.1, FOR
CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS AND TO
FIGURE 3, BLOCK 3.1 FOR
INTERMITTENT EMISSIONS
1.7
NO
NO CONTROL IS REQUIRED AT
THIS TIME. IF AT A LATER
DATE, EMISSIONS EXCEED THE
THRESHOLD RATE OR IF MODIFIED
OR RECONSTRUCTED AFTER
JANUARY 10, 1989, THEN PROCEED
TO FIGURE 2A, BLOCK 2A.1.
1.6
Figure 1. Initial Decisionmaking for Determining Which
Polypropylene and Polyethylene Process Sections Are
Affected Facilities Subject to the Standards
2-12
-------
FROM FIGURE 1
2A.1
ARE EMISSIONS CONTROLLED
IN AN EXISTING CONTROL
DEVICE?
NO
2A.2
YES
GO TO
FIGURE 2C.
ZA.3
MEASURE/CALCULATE WEIGHT
PERCENT AND ANNUAL EMISSIONS
OF EACH STREAM.
2A.A
CONSIDER EACH STREAM:
IS VOC WEIGHT PERCENT
LgS THAN 0.1 OR AR^
ACTUAL EMISSIONS LESS
THAN 1.6 MG/YR?
2A.3
YES
NO CONTROL
REQUIRED FOR
THESE INDIVIDUAL
STREAMS.
2A.4
NO
60 TO FIGURE 28.
2A.7
Figure 2A. Continuous Emissions - Separation of Controlled from
Uncontrolled Emissions and Individual Stream Exemptions
2-13
-------
FROM FIGURE
BLOCK
2A.7
2A,
78.1
IN ANY UNCONTROLLED EMISSION STREAMS
IN THE SAME WEIGHT PERCENT RANGE
FROM PREVIOUS AFFECTED FACILITIES.
I
28.3
CALCULATE TOTAL ANNUAL
EMISSIONS FOR EACH
WEIGHT PERCENT RANGE
ACCORDING TO THE
PROCEDURES IN TABLE 3.
21.4
20 TO 100 WEIGHT
PERCENT
CONTROL 98%, TO 20 PPMV, IN A
CONTROL DEVICE THAT MEETS SPECIFIED
OPERATING CONDITIONS, OR IN
AN EXISTING CONTROL DEVICE
^___ 28.7
ARE EMISSIONS EQUAL TO OR
GREATER THAN THE CALCULATED
THRESHOLD EMISSIONS? .
-• 2B.5
5.5 TO 20 WEIGHT
PERCENT
0.1 TO 5.5 WEIGHT
PERCENT
ARE EMISSIONS EQUAL TO OR
GREATER THAN THE CALCULATED
THRESHOLD EMISSIONS?
NO
21.6
YES
t
SPLIT STREAMS INTO
>8 SCFM AND THOSE
<8 SCFM.
21.9
CONTROL 98%, TO 20 PPMV, OR
IN A CONTROL DEVICE THAT MEETS
SPECIFIED OPERATING CONDITIONS
28.8
AT ™IS TIME- RETURN T0 DECISIONMAKING
. NEXT TIME A PROCESS SECTION BECOMES AN
AFFECTED FACILITY OR A CONTROL DEVICE IS MODIFIED,
RECONSTRUCTED, OR REPLACED (SEE FIGURE 2C, BLOCK 2C.8).
— . . 28.12
Figure 2B. Decisionmaking Process for Uncontrolled Continuous
Emissions from Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
2-14
-------
FROM FIGURE 2A,
BLOCK 2A.3
2C.1
ARE EMISSIONS EQUAL TO OR
GREATER THAN THE
CALCULATED THRESHOLD EMISSIONS?
STANDARD DOES
NOT NEED TO BE
MET AT THIS TIME.
2C.6
NO
CONTROL DEVICE IS MODIFIED
RECONSTRUCTED, OR REPLACED.
2C.7
ADD IN UNCONTROLLED STREAMS
IN SAME WEIGHT PERCENT
RANGE FROM PREVIOUS
AFFECTED FACILITIES.
2C.8
ARE EMISSIONS NOW
EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN
THE CALCUALTED THRESHOLD
EMISSIONS?
NO,,
YES
v YES
DOES EXISTING CONTROL
DEVICE REDUCE EMISSIONS
BY 98 PERCENT OR TO
20 PPMV OR MEET NECESSARY
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS?
2C.3
NO
YES
STANDARD IS TO BE MET NEXT
TIME THE CONTROL DEVICE IS
MODIFIED, RECONSTRUCTED, OR
REPLACED. ADD IN ANY UNCON-
TROLLED EMISSIONS IN SAME
WEIGHT PERCENT RANGE FROM
ANY AFFECTED FACILITY.
NO FURTHER
CONTROL IS
REQUIRED.
2C.3
CONTROL BY 98 PERCENT, TO 20 PPMV,
OR IN A CONTROL DEVICE THAT MEETS
SPECIFIED OPERATING CONDITIONS.
- 2C.10
N°TE: J5SSi,^LH2 INDIVIDUAI- STREAM EXEMPTIONS FOR EMISSIONS ALREADY
CONTROLLED BY EXISTING CONTROL DEVICES
Figure 2C. Decisionmaking Process for Continuous Emissions Already
Controlled at Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
2-15
-------
stream's uncontrolled emissions are less than the CTE level.
anv uncontrolled emission streams in the same weight percent
range are combined with the controlled stream (Block 2C.8^
if and when the control device is modified, reconstructed.
or replaced (Block 2C.7).
Lastly, Figure 3 outlines the determination procedure for
intermittent emissions. This procedure is much simpler than
for continuous emissions as it is based on stream type
rather than stream characteristics. This figure shows the
exemption for emergency vent streams and the timing for when
the standards are to be met, which depends on whether the
intermittent streams are uncontrolled or controlled in an
existing control device.
Q18. Is the procedure outlined above in Figures 1 through 3 used
for all affected facilities or only those that have a
January 10, 1989, applicability date?
A. The procedure outlined in Figures 1 through 3 is to be used
for all affected facilities, including those that have a
September 30, 1987, applicability date (i.e., those process
sections identified in Table 1). Note that, as discussed
earlier in the answer to Question 7, this procedure allows
affected facilities that have a September 30, 1987,
applicability date to be exempted from control requirements
if, and as long as, their uncontrolled emission rates are
below those indicated in Table 2.
Q19. In order to comply with the standards, can an existing
control device be used to control uncontrolled emission
streams?
A. Yes, under certain circumstances. If the uncontrolled
emission streams are required to be controlled by 98 percent
or to 20 ppmv, the existing control device can be used to
control the streams provided that the control device still
meets the standards after the uncontrolled streams are
combined with the currently controlled stream. If the
control device can not meet the standards when controlling
the combined streams, then the existing control device can
not be used to control the uncontrolled emission streams.
Either a new control device would be used or another
existing control device could be used, provided the
standards are met.
If the annual emissions of the uncontrolled emission streams
are less than the applicable CTE level(s), then control is
required only for those uncontrolled emission streams in the
20 to 100 weight percent range (see Blocks 2B.5 and 2B.7)
and for those individual emission streams with flows of 8
scfm or less (see Blocks 2B.6, 2B.10, and 2B.7). For such
emissions, an existing control device can be used to control
2-16
-------
FROM FIGURE 1
3.1
EXEMPT ANY EMERGENCY STREAMS
3.2
ARE EMISSI
AN EXISTIN
ONS CONTROLLED IN
G CONTROL DEVICE?
3.3
NO
STANDARDS ARE
TO BE MET.
3.4
YES
DOES CONTROL DEVICE
MEET STANDARDS?
3.3
NO
YES
NO FURTHER
CONTROL IS
REQUIRED.
3.6
STANDARDS TO BE MET NEXT
TIME THE CONTROL DEVICE IS
MODIFIED, RECONSTRUCTED,
OR REPLACED.
3.7
Figure 3. Decisionmaking Process for Intermittent Emissions from
Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
2-17
-------
the streams. (For related discussions, see Questions 20 and
21.)
Q20. When are continuous emissions allowed to be vented to an
existing control device that does not achieve 98 percent
reduction or that does not reduce the VOC concentration to
20 ppmv?
A. There are two scenarios that allow emissions to be
controlled in an existing control device that does not meet
the 98 percent reduction or 20 ppmv standard.
1. Uncontrolled emission streams in a weight percent
range whose total annual emissions are less than the
CTE level are generally not required to be controlled.
However, if there are uncontrolled individual emission
streams with flows of 8 scfm or less, then each
individual emission stream with a flow of 8 scfm or
less is still required to be controlled (see Blocks
2B.10 and 2B.7 in Figure 2B). In such instances and
for such streams, the standards allow these vent
streams to be controlled in any existing control
device (i.e., regardless of that control devices
control efficiency). Note that for emissions in the
20 to 100 VOC weight percent range, all emissions are
required to be controlled, even if the total annual
emissions are less than the CTE level (see Blocks
2B.5, 2B.7, and 2B.8 in Figure 2B).
2. If emissions are already controlled in an existing
control device and if such emissions are greater than
the CTE level for the VOC weight percent of those
emissions, then the controlled emissions may continue
to be controlled in the existing control device
regardless of the control efficiency of the control
device (see Blocks 2C.2, 2C.3, and 2C.4 in Figure 2C).
However, if the existing control device is modified,
reconstructed, or replaced at a later date, then the
emissions must be controlled by 98 percent or to a
concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is less stringent
(see Block 2C.4 in Figure 2C).
Q21. If the emissions of uncontrolled emission streams exceed the
CTE level, can the emissions that come from emission streams
with individual flows of 8 scfm or less be controlled in an
existing control device?
A. No. If the total annual emissions exceed the CTE level, all
emission streams are to meet the 98% or 20 ppmv standard,
even those emissions that come from streams with flows of 8
scfm or less.
Q22. Are all continuous emission streams with a flow of 8 scfm or
less required to be controlled?
2-18
-------
A. No. If a stream with 8 scfm or less of flow has less than
1.6 Mg per year of emissions or less than 0.10 weight
percent TOC concentration, it is exempt from control.
Control is only required of those 8 scfm or less streams
that have both emissions of 1.6 Mg per year or more and a
TOC concentration of 0.10 weight percent or higher.
Q23. Are there any other situations In which control of
individual vent streams with a flow of 8 scfm or less is not
required to be controlled?
A. Yes. Individual vent streams with a flow of 8 scfm or less
are not required to be controlled if they are in an affected
facility that is exempt from control through the
uncontrolled threshold emission rate exemption.
Q24. In calculating the total emissions for each weight percent
range, are the emissions from affected facilities whose
uncontrolled emissions are less than the uncontrolled
threshold emission rate for that affected facility included
in the total?
A. It depends on the applicability date of the affected
facility.
If the affected facility has an applicability date of
September 30, 1987, then the emissions from the affected
facility whose emission rate is less than the uncontrolled
threshold emission rate for that affected facility would not
be included in the total (see Block 1.5 of Figure 1).
If the affected facility has an applicability date of
January 10, 1989, then all emissions are included in
calculating total emissions. (This question is not relevant
to affected facilities with a January 10, 1989,
applicability date because only those affected facilities
with a September 30, 1987, applicability date can "take
advantage" of the uncontrolled threshold emission rate
exemption.)
Q25. In calculating the total emissions for each weight percent
range, are the emissions from those individual emission
streams that have either less than 1.6 Mg per year of
emissions or less than 0.10 weight percent TOC included in
the total?
A. No.
Q26. If the annual emissions (Mg/yr) for a weight percent range
are less than the applicable CTE level, but the emission
rate (kg VOC/Mg product) from one of the affected facilities
is greater than the uncontrolled threshold emission rate for
that affected facility, are the emissions from that affected
facility required to be controlled?
2-19
-------
A. No. With the exception noted in the following paragraph,
the procedure for making control/no control determinations
relies on the comparison of the annual emissions in a weight
percent range with the CTE calculated for that weight
percent range. For the above situation, the fact that one
of the affected facility's emission rate is greater than the
uncontrolled threshold emission rate is irrelevant to the
control/no control determination. Thus, for this situation,
none of the emissions in that weight percent range would
require control at this time.
If the annual emissions (Mg/yr) for a weight percent range
were greater than the CTE level, but the emission rate (kg
VOC/Mg product) from one of the affected facilities was less
than the uncontrolled threshold emission rate for that
affected facility, then, as shown in Block 1.5 of Figure 1,
the emissions from that affected facility would not require
control at this time. This provision only applies to those
affected facilities that have a September 30, 1987,
applicability date. (For related discussion, see Question
24.)
Q27. Suppose an existing process section has three emission
streams. Stream A is controlled in an existing control
device, and the other two streams are uncontrolled. The
process section is modified, thus becoming subject to the
MSPS. How many CTE levels need to be calculated?
A. As shown in Figure 2A, the procedure separates streams that
are uncontrolled from streams that are controlled. For this
situation, at least two CTE levels would be calculated. One
CTE level would be calculated for the stream that is
currently controlled. If the streams that are uncontrolled
are in the same weight percent range as each other, then a
second CTE level would be calculated. If the two
uncontrolled streams are in different weight percent ranges,
then CTE levels would be calculated for each uncontrolled
stream.
If the uncontrolled emission streams and the controlled
emission stream are in the same weight percent range, there
is only one scenario in which controlled and uncontrolled
emissions in the same weight percent range are combined to
calculate a CTE level. If the controlled stream's
uncontrolled emissions (i.e., the emissions entering the
control device) are less than the CTE level, any
uncontrolled emission streams in the same weight percent
range are combined with the controlled stream if and when
the control device is modified, reconstructed, or replaced.
At such times, a CTE level is calculated based on the
combined uncontrolled and controlled emission streams to
calculate a CTE level to determine whether the combined
emissions are required to meet the standard (98 percent or
2-20
-------
20 ppmv). This is illustrated in Figure 2C, in Blocks 2C.7,
2C.8, and 2C.9.
Q28. For the situation described in Question 27, is the currently
controlled stream subject to the standard?
A. Yes. But as shown in Figure 2C, the time at which the
"standard is to be met varies.
If the controlled stream's uncontrolled emissions are
greater than the CTE level, then compliance is required. If
the control device does not already meet the standard,
compliance is required the next time the control device is
modified, reconstructed, or replaced (see Block 2C.4). At
that time, all uncontrolled emission streams in the same
weight percent range are also required to be controlled to
meet the standards.
If the controlled stream's uncontrolled emissions are less
than the applicable CTE level for those emissions, then the
stream is not required to meet the 98 percent or 20 ppmv
standard (or equivalent) at that time (see Block 2C.6). If
the control device is modified, reconstructed, or replaced,
the controlled emission stream would be reconsidered, adding
to it any uncontrolled emission streams in the same weight
percent range from previously affected facilities (see Block
2C.8). If the combined emissions are equal to or greater
than the CTE level calculated for the combined emissions,
then control to the standard is required for the combined
emissions (see Blocks 2C.9 and 2C.10).
Q29. Suppose in the example situation in Question 27 the control
device is replaced (or modified or reconstructed) at the
same time the process section is modified, thus becoming
subject to the NSPS. Block 2B.3 (affecting uncontrolled
streams) and Block 2C.8 (affecting controlled streams) both
require consideration of uncontrolled emission streams from
previously affected facilities in the control/no control
determination procedure. How are the uncontrolled emission
streams from the previously affected facilities to be
handled in this situation?
A. Should such a situation arise, the control/no control
determination for all uncontrolled emission streams should
be made first. Thus, any uncontrolled emission streams from
previously affected facilities would be added to the two
uncontrolled emission streams from the currently modified
process section as appropriate (i.e., by virtue of being in
the same weight percent range) and the control/no control
determination would be made.
Once the control/no control determination has been made for
the uncontrolled streams, then the controlled stream from
the currently modified process section would be considered.
2-21
-------
If, after considering all of the uncontrolled emission
streams (from both the previously affected facilities and
the currently modified process section), there are any
uncontrolled emission streams from the previously affected
facilities that remain uncontrolled and that are in the same
weight percent range as the controlled stream's uncontrolled
emissions, then such emission streams would be added to the
controlled emission stream.
Q30. If, in the example presented in Question 29, there are
uncontrolled emission streams from the currently modified
process section that remain uncontrolled, should they be
combined with the controlled stream's uncontrolled emissions
(provided they are in the same weight percent range) 1n
making the control/no control determination for the
currently controlled emission stream?
A. Yes. Although not explicitly shown in the figures, adding
in such streams is completely consistent with the basis and
methodology used to derive the procedures. (See Questions
32 and 34 for additional discussion related to this point.)
Questions 31 through 34 address various scenarios to assist in
understanding how these procedures are to be used. They are all based
initially on the sample situation presented in Question 27.
Q31. Suppose the uncontrolled emission levels for both the
controlled emission stream and the uncontrolled emission
streams are greater than their respective CTE levels. What
would be the control/no control decisions?
A. In this scenario, all three streams are subject to the
standard. The uncontrolled emission streams are required to
meet the standards at this time. However, the timing of
when the controlled emission stream is to be in compliance
depends on the current performance of the control device
(see Blocks 2C.3, 2C.4, and 2C.5). (If an owner or operator
so elects, all three emission streams could be controlled in
a single control device.)
If the existing control device is replaced at the same time
as the process section is modified, the currently controlled
emission stream is required to meet the standard at this
time. If the existing control device is not replaced at the
same time as the process section is modified, then the
currently controlled emission stream would not have to meet
the standard until the control device is later replaced (or
modified or reconstructed).
Q32. Suppose the uncontrolled emission rate for the controlled
emission stream is greater than the CTE level for that
stream, but the uncontrolled emission rates for the
uncontrolled emission streams are less than their respective
CTE level. What would be the control/no control decisions?
2-22
-------
A. Except as discussed in the following paragraph, control is
not required for the two uncontrolled emission streams in
this scenario. The controlled emission stream would be
subject to the standards and would be required to comply
with the standards as discussed in the answer to Question
29.
If the existing control device is modified (or replaced or
reconstructed) at the same time that the process section is
modified, then (as discussed in the response to Question 30)
the uncontrolled emission streams would be combined with the
currently controlled emission stream (provided they are in
the same weight percent range) and would be controlled.
This is an application of Block 2C.4.
Q33. Suppose the uncontrolled emission rate for the controlled
emission stream is less than the CTE level for that stream,
but the uncontrolled emission rates for the uncontrolled
emission streams are greater than their respective CTE
levels. What would be the control/no control decisions?
A. In this scenario, the uncontrolled emission streams would be
required to comply with the standards at this time.
The currently controlled emission stream would not be
required to meet the standards at this time (see Blocks 2C.2
and 2C.6).
Q34. Suppose the uncontrolled emission levels for both the
controlled emission stream and the uncontrolled emission
streams are less than their respective CTE levels.
A. Except as discussed in the following paragraph, none of the
emission streams would be need to comply with the standards
at this time.
If the existing control device is modified (or replaced or
reconstructed) at the same time that the process section is
modified and if any of the uncontrolled emission streams are
in the same weight percent range as the controlled stream,
then such streams would be combined with the currently
controlled emission stream, a new CTE level would be
calculated, and a new control/no control determination would
be made. This is an application of Block 2C.8, as discussed
in the response to Question 30.
4. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
o Notification and recordkeeping requirements of §60.7 of the
General Provisions, which include such notifications as
notification of date of construction, anticipated start-up,
actual date of initial start-up, and physical or operational
changes that may increase the emission rate.
2-23
-------
Notification of which process operation in Table 1 of the
final rule that an owner or operator:
1. Is applying for the purpose of identifying the
applicable affected facilities for process sections
that are constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
September 30, 1987, and on or before January 10, 1989,
[§60.560(b)(l)(11)]; or
2. Is selecting for purposes of determining applicable
affected facilities and uncontrolled threshold
emission rates for process sections that are
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
September 30, 1987, and on or before January 10, 1989,
and that are in process lines in which more than one
type of polymer is being produced [§60.560(i)].
Up-to-date, readily accessible record of the initial
performance test and of all subsequent performance tests.
With the initial performance test, an engineering report
describing in detail the vent system used to vent each
affected vent stream to a control device.
Monitoring of control device parameters, with semiannual
reports of when monitored parameters are exceeded.
Records of any changes in production capacity, feedstock
type, or catalyst type, or of any replacement, removal or
addition of product recovery equipment.
Record and report any changes in process operations that
increase the uncontrolled emission rate of the process line
in which the affected facility is located if the owner or
operator is seeking to exempt that affected facility from
the standard by complying with the uncontrolled emission
rate exemption.
Record and report any changes in process operations that
increase the uncontrolled annual emissions or VOC
concentration, as appropriate, for each individual stream an
owner or operator is seeking to exempt from the standard by
complying with the uncontrolled annual emissions or VOC
weight percent concentration exemption for individual
streams.
2-24
-------
B. Polystyrene
1. Applicability
Q35. Do the process emission standards affect all plants that
produce polystyrene?
A. No. The process emission standards apply only to those
plants producing general purpose (crystal) or impact
polystyrene or polystyrene copolymers using a continuous
process. The process emission standards do not apply to
plants that produce general purpose (crystal) or impact
polystyrene or polystyrene copolymers using a batch
production process or to plants that produce expandable
polystyrene using either an in-situ suspension process or a
post-impregnation suspension process.
Q36. What are the affected facilities for polystyrene plants?
A. The affected facility for process emissions is each material
recovery section. Note that this applies only to plants
producing general purpose or impact polystyrene or
polystyrene copolymers using a continuous process.
Q37. What is the applicability date for polystyrene affected'
facilities?
A. The applicability date for all polystyrene affected
facilities is September 30. 1987.
2. Exemptions
Q38. Are there any exemptions provided for in the polystyrene
standards?
A. Yes. Individual material recovery sections with
uncontrolled emission rates below 0.05 kilogram (kg) TOC per
megagram (Mg) of product are exempt from the standards.
This is the only exemption provided for polystyrene affected
facilities.
Q39. Do these uncontrolled threshold emission rates apply to
constructed, modified, and reconstructed material recovery
sections?
A. No. This exemption applies only to those material recovery
sections that are modified or reconstructed. They do not
apply to constructed (i.e., new) material recovery sections.
Q40. How is "uncontrolled emission rate" defined?
A. "Uncontrolled emission rate" refers to the emission rate of
a vent stream that vents directly to the atmosphere and to
the emission rate of a vent stream to the atmosphere that
2-25
-------
would occur in the absence of any add-on control devices,
but after any material recovery devices that constitute part
of the normal material recovery operations in a process line
where potential emissions are recovered for recycle or
resale.
3. Standards
Q41. What are the process emission standards for polystyrene
facilities?
A. The process emission standards are:
1. limit the emissions of TOC (minus methane and ethane)
to 0.0036 kg of TOC per Mg of product (0.0036 IDS
TOC/1,000 Ibs product) from each material recovery
section, or
2. limit the outlet gas temperature from each final
condenser in each material recovery section to -25°C
(-13'F), or
3. reduce emissions from each material recovery section
by 98 weight percent or to 20 ppmv.
An owner or operator is required to meet one of these
limits; he or she is not required to meet each limit.
Q42. How is compliance with the outlet gas temperature
requirement determined?
A. If an owner or operator elects to comply with the outlet
temperature standard, the rule requires a temperature
monitor equipped with a continuous recorder to calculate the
average exit temperature measured at least every 15 minutes
and average over the performance test period. Each 3-hour
period constitutes a performance test.
4. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
o Notification and recordkeeping requirements of §60.7 of the
General Provisions, which include such notifications as
notification of date of construction, anticipated start-up,
actual date of initial start-up, and physical or operational
changes that may increase the emission rate.
o Up-to-date, readily accessible record of the initial
performance test and of all subsequent performance tests.
o With the initial performance test, an engineering report
describing in detail the vent system used to vent each
affected vent stream to a-control device.
2-26
-------
Monitoring of control device parameters, with semiannual
reports of when monitored parameters are exceeded.
Records of any changes in production capacity, feedstock
type, or catalyst type, or of any replacement, removal or
addition of product recovery equipment.
Record and report any changes in process operations that"
increases the uncontrolled emission rate of the process line
in which the affected facility is located if the owner or
operator is seeking to exempt that affected facility from
the standard by complying with the uncontrolled emission
rate exemption.
2-27
-------
C. Polyethylene terephthalate) (PET)
1. Applicability
Q43. Do the standards affect all plants that produce PET?
A. The process emission standards apply to all plants producing
PET or PET copolymers using either the dimethyl
terephthalate (DMT) process or the terephthalic acid (TPA)
process in a continuous production process. The standards
do not apply to process emissions from facilities that use a
batch production process.
Q44. What are the affected facilities for plants producing PET?
A. For plants producing PET using the DMT process, the affected
facilities are each:
1. material recovery section, and
2. polymerization reaction section.
For plants producing PET using the TPA process, the affected
facilities are each:
1. raw materials preparation section, and
2. polymerization reaction section.
Q45. What is the applicability date for PET affected facilities?
A. The applicability date for all PET affected facilities is
September 30, 1987.
2. Exemptions
Q46. Are there any exemptions provided for in the PET standards?
A. Yes. Individual affected facilities with uncontrolled
emission rates below specified uncontrolled threshold
emission rates are exempt from the standards. These rates
are shown in Table 3. This is the only exemption provided
for PET affected facilities.
Q47. How is "uncontrolled emission rate" defined?
A. "Uncontrolled emission rate" refers to the emission rate of
a vent stream that vents directly to the atmosphere and to
the emission rate of a vent stream to the atmosphere that
would occur in the absence of any add-on control devices,
but after any material recovery devices that constitute part
of the normal material recovery operations in a process line
where potential emissions are recovered for recycle or
resale.
2-28
-------
Table 3. Maximum Uncontrolled Threshold Emission Rates*
for Poly(ethylene terephthalate) Affected Facilities"
Production Process
Process Section
Uncontrolled
Emission Rate,
kg TOC/Mg product
Poly(ethylene terephthalate),
dimethyl terephthalate process
Material Recovery
Polymerization Reaction
0.12**
1.80*u
Poly(ethylene terephthalate),
terephthalic acid process
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
1.80***
3.92**
"Uncontrolled emission rate" refers to the emission rate of a vent stream that vents directly to
the atmosphere and to the emission rate of a vent stream to the atmosphere that would occur in
the absence of any add-on control devices but after any material recovery devices that constitute
part of the normal material recovery operations in a process line where potential emissions are
recovered for recycle or resale.
Emission rate applies to continuous emissions only.
c Applies to modified or reconstructed affected facilities only.
d Includes emissions from the cooling water tower.
Applies to a process line producing low viscosity polyCethylene terephthalate).
Applies to a process line producing high viscosity polyCethylene terephthalate).
8 See footnote h.
Applies to the sum of emissions to the atmosphere from the polymerization reaction section •
(including emissions from the cooling water tower) and the raw materials preparation section
(i.e., the esterifiers).
2-29
-------
3. Standards
Q48. What are the standards for PET facilities?
A. Table 4 summarizes the standards for PET facilities.
For PET plants using the DMT process:
o The standards limit TOC to the atmosphere from each
material recovery section (i.e., methanol recovery) to
0.018 ko of TOC per Mo of product (0.018 Ibs TOC/1,000
Ibs product), or the outlet gas temperature from each
final condenser in the material recovery section
(i.e., methanol recovery) to +3°C f+37°n.
An owner or operator is required to meet one or the
other of these limits; he or she is not required to
meet both limits.
o The standards also limit TOC to the atmosphere from
each polymerization reaction section to 0.02 ko TOC
per Mo of product (0.02 Ibs TOC/1,000 Ibs product).
This limit includes emissions from any equipment used
to recover further the ethylene glycol for reuse in
the process or sale offsite, but does not include
organic compound emissions released to the atmosphere
from the cooling tower used to provide the cooling
water to the vacuum system servicing the
polymerization reaction section.
o If steam-.iet e.iectors are used to provide the vacuum
in the polymerization reaction section, the standards
also limit the ethvlene olvcol concentration in either
the effluent exiting the vacuum system servicing the
polymerization reaction section or in the cooling
water in the cooling tower used to provi'de the cooling
water to the vacuum system servicing the
polymerization reaction.
o If either a low viscosity PET product is being
produced using one or more end finishers per
process line or a high viscosity PET product is
being produced using single end finishers per
process line, the ethylene glycol concentration
in the effluent exiting the vacuum system is
limited to 0.35 percent by weight based on a 14-
day rolling average on a daily basis.
o If a high viscosity product is being produced
using multiple end finishers, the ethylene
glycol concentration in the cooling water in the
cooling tower is limited to 6.0 percent by
weight based on a 14-day rolling average on a
daily basis.
2-30
-------
Table 4. Summary of PET Standards
1 PROCESS
I
DMT
1 °NT
TPA
TPA
AFFECTED
FACILITY
Hateriai
Recovery
Polymeri-
zation
Reaction
Raw
llfttA!* tale
Prepare-
Polymer!-
Reaction
VISCOSITY
=====
Lou
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
NUMBER OF
END FINISHERS
^-=
--
Single
Multiple
--
Single
Multiple
-^ •••'•
Single
Multiple
--
Single
Multiple
TYPE OF VACUUM
PRODUCER
j
--
--
..
not steam jets
steam jets
not steam jets
steam jets
not steam jets
steam jets
--
--
not steam jets
steam jets
not steam jets
steam jets
not steam jets
steam jet*
STANDARD
0.018 kg TOC/Mg of product OR limit temperature to +37 "F from
each final condenser in the material recovery section 1
(same as above) I
0.02 kg TOC/Hg of product 1
0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product AND 0.35 X ethylene glycol by weight
in the effluent exiting the vacuum system
0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product
0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product AMD 0.35 X ethylene glycol by weight
in the effluent exiting the vacuum system
0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product
0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product AND 6.0 X ethylene glycol by weight
in the cooling water in the cooling tower
0.04 kg TOC/Mg of product
(same as above)
(same as above)
0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product
0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product ANp. 0.3S X ethylene glycol by weight
In the effluent exiting the vacuum system
0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product
0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product AMD 0.35 X ethylene glycol by weight
In the effluent exiting the vacuum system
0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product
0.02 kg TOC/Mg of product AND 6.0 X ethylene glycol by weight
in tht cooling water in the cooling tower
ro
i
KEY: DNT « dimethyl terephthalate
TPA • terephthallc acid
-------
For plants producing PET using the TPA process:
o The standards limit TOC from each raw materials
preparation section (i.e., the esterifiers) to 0.04 kg
of TOC per Mo of product (0.04 Ibs TOC/1,000 Ibs
product).
o The standards for polymerization reaction section in
which the TPA process is being used are the same as
for the polymerization reaction section in PET plants
using the DMT process.
Q49. How is compliance with the ethylene glycol limits
determined?
A. For determining compliance with the ethylene glycol
concentration standards, ASTM D2908-74, "Standard Practice
for Measuring Volatile Organic Matter in Water by Aqueous-
Injection Chromatography," is to be used. At least one
sample per operating day is to be collected with an average
ethylene glycol concentration by weight calculated on a
daily basis over a rolling 14-day period of operating days.
Each daily average ethylene glycol concentration so
calculated constitutes a performance test. The promulgated
standards allow an owner or operator to institute a reduced
testing program if the concentration of the ethylene glycol
in the vacuum system effluent or in the cooling water, as
applicable, meets certain criteria.
4. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
o Notification and recordkeeping requirements of §60.7 of the
General Provisions, which include such notifications as
notification of date of construction, anticipated start-up,
actual date of initial start-up, and physical or operational
changes that may increase the emission rate.
o Up-to-date, readily accessible record of the initial
performance test and of all subsequent performance tests.
o With the initial performance test, an engineering report
describing in detail the vent system used to vent each
affected vent stream to a control device.
o Monitoring of control device parameters, with semiannual
reports of when monitored parameters are exceeded.
o Records of any changes in production capacity, feedstock
type, or catalyst type, or of any replacement, removal or
addition of product recovery equipment.
o Record and report any changes in process operations that
increases the uncontrolled emission rate of the process line
in which the affected facility is located if the owner or
2-32
-------
operator is seeking to exempt that affected facility from
the standard by complying with the uncontrolled emission
rate exemption.
2-33
-------
11• EQUIPMENT LEAKS OF VQC EMISSIONS (FUGITIVE EMISSIONS)
(These standards apply Subpart VV, "Standards of Performance
for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry" to the polymer manufacturing industry.
The standards for equipment leaks of VOC emissions for polymer
™™fa^turing facill'ties, therefore, are the same as those for the
50CMI.)
1. Applicability
Q50. Are all of the polymer production processes covered by the
standards for equipment leaks of VOC?
A. The standards of performance for equipment leaks of VOC
emissions apply to polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene
(including impact polystyrene), polypropylene copolymer,
polyethylene copolymer, and polystyrene copolymer
manufacturing plants. Equipment leaks from equipment in PET
or PET copolymer manufacturing plants are not covered by
these standards.
Q51. What are the affected facilities for equipment leaks?
A. The affected facility is each process unit. This 1s the
same affected facility as for Subpart VV, "Standards of
Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry."
Q52. What is the applicability date for equipment leak affected
facilities?
A. The applicability date for all equipment leak affected
facilities is September 30, 1987.
Q53. What type of equipment are covered by the equipment leak
standards?
A. The equipment leak standards apply to pumps, valves,
sampling connections, pressure relief devices, open-ended
valves, and compressors in VOC service within each new,
modified, and reconstructed process unit.
2. Exemptions
Q54. What exemptions are there for equipment leaks of VOC?
A. There are two exemptions associated with equipment leaks.
1. Affected facilities with a design capacity to produce
less than 1,000 Mg per year (of product) are exempted.
This is the same exemption as found in Subpart VV.
2-34
-------
2. In §60.482-2(b) of Subpart VV, there are two
definitions of when a leak is detected: (1) "If an
instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is
measured" and (2) "If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal." Certain polymer pumps
are designed to purge polymer fluid from bleed ports,
thereby allowing small quantities of VOC emissions to
escape to the atmosphere. These pumps must use the
polymer fluid to provide lubrication and/or cooling of
the pump shaft. The final rule exempts purging from
bleed ports that are technologically required in
existing pumps from the "indications of liquid
dripping" definition until the pump is replaced or
reconstructed. Once such pumps are replaced or
reconstructed, then both definitions of when a leak is
detected apply.
3. Standards
Q55. What are the standards for equipment leaks of VOC?
A. The promulgated standards require owners and operators of
affected facilities in the plants identified above to comply
with 40 CFR Part 60 - Subpart VV - "Standards of Performance
for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry" (SOCMI).
Subpart VV, which is made applicable to the affected
facilities in the plants specified above, requires: (1) a
leak detection and repair program for valves in gas or light
liquid service and for pumps in light liquid service; (2)
certain equipment for compressors, sampling connection
systems, and open-ended valves; and (3) no detectable
emissions from pressure relief devices in gas service during
normal operation.
Subpart VV allows the use of "leakless" equipment for
valves, pumps, compressors and sampling connection systems
as an alternative to the required equipment and work
practices. In addition, Subpart VV allows the use of
alternative leak detection and repair programs for valves.
Subpart VV also contains a procedure for determining the
equivalency of alternative leak detection and repair
programs.
Q56. What do "in VOC," "in gas" and "in light liquid" service
mean?
A. "In VOC service" means that a fugitive emission source
contains or contacts a fluid containing 10 or more percent
by weight VOC.
2-35
-------
"In gas service" means that a fugitive emission source
contains VOC fluids in the gaseous or vapor state.
"In lioht liquid service" means that a fugitive emission
source contains a liquid in which the vapor pressure of one
or more of the components is greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 °C,
as obtained from standard reference texts or as determined
by ASTM Method D-2879, and the total concentration of the
pure components having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kPa
at 20 °C equal to or greater than 20 percent by weight.
2-36
-------
Section 3 General Provisions
General provisions, which are used in implementing NSPS, are
contained in Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 60, from §60.1 to §60.18. These
provisions should be consulted whenever there are questions regarding
applicability or implementation of the standard. In this section,
summaries of §§60.12 (Circumvention), 60.14 (Modification), and 60.15
(Reconstruction) are presented. The reason for explaining circumvention
is that the rule contains two cutoffs (one based on weight percent VOC
and the other one annual VOC emissions) that allow individual streams
with continuous emissions from polypropylene and polyethylene facilities
to be exempt from any control. It is possible to dilute individual
streams to take advantage of these cutoffs to avoid their control under
these standards; to do so is inappropriate. The reason for explaining
modification and reconstruction is to help ensure identification of
existing facilities to which the rule should be applied. Finally, the
rule requires control of all intermittent releases from polypropylene
and polyethylene facilities, except for certain emergency releases. The
definition of emergency release includes concepts similar to those in
the definition of malfunction, and the relationship between this
provision and the definition of malfunction is reviewed.
3-1
-------
I. CIRCUMVENTION (§60.12)
Q57. What constitutes a circumvention under Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act?
A. Any method employed by an owner or operator to conceal emissions
that would otherwise constitute a violation of an applicable
standard. For example, the use of gaseous diluents to achieve
compliance with an opacity standard or a standard that is based on
the concentration of a pollutant in the gases discharged to the
atmosphere would be considered circumvention.
Q58. Besides circumventing an applicable standard, are there other
aspects of the standard that an owner or operator may try to
circumvent that are likewise prohibited?
A. Yes. It is possible for an owner or operator to manipulate the
construction, modification, or reconstruction of a polypropylene
or polyethylene affected facility to take advantage of the
individual vent stream exemptions for continuous emissions found
at §60.560(g), which allows such a stream to be exempt from the
standards if its uncontrolled annual emissions are less than 1.6
Mg or if its TOC concentration is less than 0.10 weight percent.
Q59. How can one determine whether an owner or operator 1s trying to
manipulate an individual vent stream so as to take advantage of
§60.560(b)?
A. This would be difficult to do, but there should be enough
indicators to determine the intent of the owner or operator. One
indicator that can be used for either exemption criteria is the
past practice of the company at the same plant site, similar plant
site, or similar facilities owned by other companies. Splitting a
vent stream into multiple vent streams that are then emitted to
the atmosphere would be an obvious attempt to take advantage of
the annual emissions exemption. New facilities should be
discouraged from venting small multiple vent streams that are in
close proximity to each other (e.g., analyzer vents at a building)
where they could be combined into a single stream. However, where
a company has used this construction practice in the past, such a
situation does not constitute circumvention.
Especially important is to ensure that an emission stream is not
intentionally diluted to take advantage of the weight percent VOC
exemption. Dilution is most likely to be of concern for streams
emanating from the product finishing and product storage sections
as these streams already tend to be fairly dilute, but can have
significant emissions. Past practices and concentration levels
can be very helpful in making determinations of "circumvention."
It is possible that as more VOC is recovered upstream of these
process sections, the emission streams from them will become more
dilute. Therefore, all aspects of the process will probably need
to be examined to ensure proper design levels are being employed.
3-2
-------
II. MODIFICATION (§60.14)
Q60. What constitutes a modification under Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act?
A. Any physical or operational change to an existing facility which
results in an increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere of
any pollutant to which a standard applies.
Q61. Are there any exceptions to this?
A. Yes. At §60.14(e) there are six specific exceptions, any one of
which by itself is not considered a modification. Also at
§60.14(f) there is one general exception - the rule that wherever
a subpart is more specific than the general provision, the more
specific language takes precedence. The exceptions under
§60.14(e) are listed below:
1. maintenance, repair, and replacement which the Administrator
determines to be routine for a source category;
2. an increase in production rate of an existing facility, if the
increase was accomplished without a capital expenditure on the
facility;
3. an increase in the hours of production;
4. the use of an alternative fuel or raw material, if prior to
the date that the source becomes subject to an applicable
standard under 40 CFR Part 60, the facility was designed to
use the alternative fuel or raw material;
5. the addition or use of any air pollution control system or
device except when such a system is removed or replaced by a
system that the Administrator determines to be less
environmentally beneficial; or
6. the relocation or change in ownership of an existing facility.
Q62. What is a capital expenditure?
A. This term is defined at §60.2 as an expenditure for a physical or
operational change to an existing facility which exceeds the
product of the applicable "annual asset guideline repair allowance
percentage" and the existing facility's basis. However, the total.
expenditure for a physical or operational change to an existing
facility must not be reduced by any "excluded additions" as
defined in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Publication 534, as
would be done for tax purposes.
The annual asset guideline repair allowance percentage is also
found in IRS Publication 534, and the existing facility's basis is
defined by §1012 of the Internal Revenue Code. Please note that
while the IRS continues to issue Publication 534, the edition with
3-3
-------
the "annual asset guideline repair allowance percentage" (AAGRAP)
was last published in 1984. A copy of the 1984 edition was sent
to all State and local air program directors in a memorandum dated
July 11, 1989. As published is the 1984 edition, the AAGRAP for
the industries affected by the Polymer Manufacturing Industry NSPS
was 12.5.
Q63. What happens once a source is modified?
A. Once modified, an existing facility becomes an affected facility
for each pollutant to which a standard applies and for which there
is an increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere. EPA gives
the following example at 39 FR 36946-36947 (October 15, 1974):
"... if an affected facility is regulated by standards of
performance for particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and
sulfur dioxide, and if emissions of ammonia and particulate
matter from a corresponding existing facility increase as the
result of a physical or operational change, standards of
performance [apply] only to the particulate matter emissions
from the modified facility. [Once modified] the existing
facility is considered an affected facility and is subject to
the standards of performance in the same way as a newly
constructed affected facility. Therefore, the entire affected
facility is subject to the standards of performance, not just
the portion...responsible for the increase in emissions."
Q64. How is the emission rate determined?
A. An emission rate is expressed as kg/hr of any pollutant discharged
into the atmosphere for which a standard is applicable. The
Administrator determines an emission rate by using emission
factors specified in the latest issue of EPA Publication AP-42,
"Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors." He or she can
also use material balances, continuous monitoring data, or manual
emission tests to determine emission factors. Where an emission
rate is based on the results of continuous monitoring data or a
manual emission test, the procedures in Appendix C to 40 CFR Part
60 must be followed and the test shall be conducted under the
conditions specified by the Administrator. Three valid runs of
the test must be conducted before the modification and three
after. In addition, all operating parameters that may affect
emissions must be held constant to the maximum degree feasible for
all runs. The requirements for determining an emission rate are
specified at §60.14(b).
Q65. What happens if a stationary source is expanded by constructing an
affected facility? What happens if an affected facility 1s
constructed at a stationary source as a replacement for an
existing facility?
A. Under §60.14(c), either action by itself will not cause the
remainder of the stationary source to be subject to standards of
3-4
-------
performance. EPA gives this explanation at 39 FR 36947 (October
15, 1974):
"It can be inferred from the definition in the Act...that if
emissions increase as the result of the construction of a new
basic oxygen furnace in an iron and steel mill, the entire
iron and steel mill (or at least the affected facilities for
which standards have been developed) would be subject to
standards of performance. [However,] this interpretation has
not been adopted because ... the costs which would result from
requiring all existing facilities in a stationary source to
comply with standards of performance because of a change in
one existing facility would ... be disproportionate to the
capital investment required to originally make the physical or
operational change."
Q66. If a source is modified, what is the time period for achieving
compliance?
A. Compliance with all applicable standards must be accomplished
within 180 days of completing the physical or operational change.
This time period is specified at §60.14(g).
Q67. Where can more information on §60.14 be found?
A. The preamble to the proposed rule published at 39 FR 36946
(October 15, 1974) and the preamble to the final rule published at
40 FR 58419 (December 16, 1975) contain useful information on the
intent of this rule. Also note that the rule has been modified
twice since its original promulgation: at 43 FR 34347 (August 3,
1978) and at 45 FR 5617 (January 23, 1980).
3-5
-------
III. RECONSTRUCTION (§60.15)
Q68. What is reconstruction?
A. Reconstruction is defined at §60.15(b) and means the replacement
of components of an existing facility to such an extent that (1)
the fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent
(half) of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new facility, and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable
performance standards of 40 CFR 60. Also, bear in mind that
§60.15(g) includes the caveat: "Individual subparts of [Part 60]
may include specific provisions which refine and delimit the
concept of reconstruction set forth in [§60.15]."
Q69. What is "fixed capital cost?"
A. The fixed capital cost is the capital needed to provide all the
depreciable components. In layman's terms, this would be the
principal needed to cover the cost of engineering, purchase, and
installation of major process equipment, contractors' fees,
instrumentation, auxiliary facilities, buildings, and structures.
Fixed capital cost does not include the purchase and installation
of equipment primarily used for air pollution control unless that
equipment is required as part of the process (e.g., product
recovery). "Fixed capital cost" is further discussed at 40 FR
58418 (December 16, 1975) and in a letter from Ajax to Thoem dated
October 11, 1983.
Q70. How is reconstruction significantly different from modification?
A. When an existing facility is reconstructed, it becomes an affected
facility, regardless of any chanoe in emission rate.
Q71. What are the responsibilities of an owner or an operator of a
facility under §60.15?
A. If an owner or operator of an existing facility proposes to
replace components and the fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would
be required to construct a comparable entirely new facility, he or
she must notify EPA of the proposed replacements. The notice must
be postmarked 60 days, or as soon as practicable, before
construction of the replacement begins, and the notice must
contain seven key elements specified at §60.15(d).
Q72. What happens after that notice is submitted to EPA?
A. The Administrator has 30 days from receipt of the notice and anv
additional information he or she may reasonably require within
which to determine whether the proposed replacement constitutes a
reconstruction. The determination shall be based on technical and
economic information specified under §60.15(f).
3-6
-------
IV. MALFUNCTION
Q73. What is a "malfunction"?
A. Section 60.2 defines malfunction as:
"...any sudden and unavoidable failure of air pollution
control equipment or process equipment or of a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused
entirely or in part by poor maintenance, careless operation,
or any other preventable upset condition or preventable
equipment breakdown shall not be considered malfunctions."
Q74. Is an owner or operator in violation of a standard if emissions
exceed the standard during a period of malfunction?
A. No, unless the subpart specifies otherwise [§60.8(c)]. However,
an owner or operator is still required to operate the affected
facility including associated air pollution control equipment in a
manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for
minimizing emissions.
Q75. How does a malfunction, as defined at Section 60.2, relate to the
exemption for emergency vent streams provided for at Section
60.560(h)?
A. Under this rule, emergency vent streams, which are one type of
intermittent emissions, are not required to be controlled. This
rule defines an "emergency vent stream" as:
"... an intermittent emission that results from a
decomposition, attempts to prevent decompositions, power
failure, equipment failure, or other unexpected cause that
requires immediate venting of gases from process equipment in
order to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage. This
includes intermittent vents that occur from process equipment
where normal operating parameters (e.g., pressure or
temperature) are exceeded such that the process equipment
cannot be returned to normal operating conditions using the
design features of the system and venting must occur to avoid
equipment failure or adverse safety personnel consequences and
to minimize adverse effects of the runaway reaction. This
does not include intermittent vents that are designed into the
process to maintain normal operating conditions of process
vessels including those vents that regulate normal process
vessel pressure."
In general, the definition of emergency vent stream deals with
emissions that arise as a result of some type of a malfunction to
the process equipment or to the process itself. Decompositions
and attempts to prevent them occur when the process fails to
operate in a normal or usual manner. "Equipment failure or other
unexpected cause" are intended to refer to process equipment
failures. The definition of "emergency vent stream", however, is
3-7
-------
intended to clarify situations that are required to be controlled,
even if the emissions might be argued to have arisen as a result
of a "malfunction" as defined in the General Provisions. More
specifically, intermittent emissions that occur as a result of a
malfunction, but that do not pose safety hazards or equipment
damage, are required to be controlled, including those
intermittent emissions that occur as a result of system features
designed to regulate normal process conditions. Normal process
conditions may be upset as a result of a malfunction. The process
system may be designed so that the process can be returned to
normal process conditions. Intermittent emissions occurring as a
result of this malfunction through the return of the process to
its normal operating conditions are to be controlled. In some
instances, however, a malfunction may occur such that the
capabilities of the system are exceeded and the process cannot be
returned to normal process operating conditions. In these
instances, emissions that occur after the point of "no return" may
be vented to the atmosphere provided such venting is necessary to
avoid equipment failure and severe adverse safety personnel
consequences, and to minimize adverse effects of the runaway
reactions. Intermittent emissions that occur prior to point of
"no return" are to be controlled.
Q76. Are there any qualifications to the definition of "malfunction" as
applied to continuous emissions?
A. No.
3-8
-------
Section 4 Regulation for the Polymer Manufacturing Industry
The rulemaking for the polymer manufacturing industry is presented
here in its entirety as it appears in the Federal Register notice for
the promulgation of these standards. The rulemaking is presented here
so that it can be referred to whenever questions arise after reviewing
the summary of standards presented earlier.
Final Rule for the Polymer Manufacturing Industry
40 CFR Part 60 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 60 continues to read as
f ol1ows:
Authority: Sees. 101, 111, 114, 116, 301, Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7601).
2. By adding a new subpart DOO to read as follows:
Subpart ODD - Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) Emissions from the Polymer Manufacturing Industry
Sec.
60.560 Applicability and designation of affected facilities.
60.561 Definitions.
60.562-1 Standards: Process emissions.
60.562-2 Standards: Equipment leaks of VOC.
60.563 Monitoring requirements.
60.564 Test methods and procedures.
60.565 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
60.566 Delegation of authority.
4-1
-------
Subpart ODD - Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) Emissions from the Polymer Manufacturing Industry
§60.560 Applicability and designation of affected facilities
(a) Affected Facilities. The provisions of this subpart apply to
affected facilities involved in the manufacture of polypropylene,
polyethylene, polystyrene, or poly(ethylene terephthalate) as defined in
§60.561 of this subpart. The affected facilities designated below for
polypropylene and polyethylene are inclusive of all equipment used in
the manufacture of these polymers, beginning with raw materials
preparation and ending with product storage, and cover all emissions
emanating from such equipment.
(1) For process emissions from any polypropylene and polyethylene
manufacturing process that uses a continuous process, the affected
facilities are each of the following process sections: each raw
materials preparation section, each polymerization reaction section,
each material recovery section, each product finishing section, and each
product storage section. These process sections are affected facilities
for process emissions that are emitted continuously and for process
emissions that are emitted intermittently.
(2) For process emissions from polystyrene manufacturing
processes that use a continuous process, the affected facilities are
each material recovery section. These process sections are affected
facilities for only those process emissions that are emitted
continuously.
(3) For process emissions from poly(ethylene terephthalate)
manufacturing processes that use a continuous process, the affected
facilities are each polymerization reaction section. If the process
4-2
-------
uses dimethyl terephthalate, then each material recovery section is also
an affected facility. If the process uses terephthalic acid, then each
raw materials preparation section is also an affected facility. These
process sections are affected facilities for only those process
emissions that are emitted continuously.
(4) For VOC emissions from equipment leaks from polypropylene,
polyethylene, and polystyrene (including expandable polystyrene)
manufacturing processes, the affected facilities are each group of
fugitive emissions equipment (as defined in §60.561) within any process
unit (as defined in §60.561). This subpart does not apply to VOC
emissions from equipment leaks from poly(ethylene terephthalate)
manufacturing processes.
(i) Affected facilities with a design capacity to produce less
than 1,000 Mg/yr shall be exempt from §60.562-2.
(ii) Addition or replacement of equipment for the purposes of
improvement which is accomplished without a capital expenditure shall
not by itself be considered a modification under §60.562-2.
(b) Applicability Dates. The applicability date identifies when
an affected facility becomes subject to a standard. Usually, a standard
has a single applicability date. However, some polypropylene and
polyethylene affected facilities have a September 30, 1987,
applicability date and others have a January 10, 1989, applicability
date. The following paragraphs identify the applicability dates for all
affected facilities subject to this subpart.
(1) Polypropylene and Polyethylene. Each process section in a
polypropylene or polyethylene production process is a potential affected
facility for both continuous and intermittent emissions. The
4-3
-------
applicability date depends on when the process section was constructed,
modified, or reconstructed and, in some instances, on the type of
production process.
(i) The applicability date for any polypropylene or polyethylene
affected facility that is constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
January 10, 1989, regardless of the type of production process being
used, is January 10, 1989.
(ii) Only some polypropylene or polyethylene process sections
that are constructed, modified, or reconstructed on or before January
10, 1989, but after September 30, 1987, are affected facilities. These
process sections (and the type of emissions to be controlled) are
identified by an "x" in Table 1. The applicability date for the process
sections (and the emissions to be controlled) that are identified by an
"x" in Table 1 is September 30, 1987. Since the affected facilities
that have a September 30, 1987, applicability date are determined by the
type of production process (e.g., liquid phase, gas phase), each owner
or operator shall identify the particular production process that
applies to his or her particular process.
(2) Polystyrene. The applicability date for each polystyrene
affected facility is September 30, 1987.
(3) Poly(ethylene terephthalate). The applicability date for
each poly(ethylene terephthalate) affected facility is September 30,
1987.
(c) Any facility under paragraph (a) of this section that
commences construction, modification, or reconstruction after its
applicability date as identified under paragraph (b) is subject to the
requirements of this subpart, except as provided in paragraphs (d)
through (f) of this section.
4-4
-------
Table 1. Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities with
September 30, 1987, Applicability Date
Potvmer Production Process
Polypropylene Liquid phase
Emissions
Process Section
Raw Materials Preparation
Material Recovery
Polymerization Reaction
Product Finishing
Product Storage
Continuous
X
X
X
X
Intermittent
Polypropylene Gas Phase
Rau Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Product Storage
Lou Density High Pressure
Polyethylene
Low Density Low Pressure
Polyethylene
High Density Gas Phase
Polyethylene
High Density Liquid Phase Slurry
Polyethylene
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Product Storage
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Product Storage
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
--
X
- . - -
X
--
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Product Storage
High Density
Polyethylene
Liquid Phase Solution
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Product Storage
NOTE: "X" denotes that that process section is an affected facility for continuous or intermittent
emissions or both, as shown, which has a September 30, 1987, applicability date.
"--" denotes that that process section is not considered an affected facility for continuous or
intermittent emissions or both, as shown, if the process section is constructed, modified, or
reconstructed after September 30, 1987, and on or before January 10, 1989. These process sections
are affected facilities if they are constructed, modified, or reconstructed after January 10, 1989.
4-5
-------
(d) Any polypropylene or polyethylene affected facility with a
September 30, 1987, applicability date that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after September 30, 1987, and on or
before January 10, 1989, with an uncontrolled emission rate (as defined
in footnote a to Table 2) at or below those identified in Table 2 is not
subject to the requirements of §60.562-1 unless and until its
uncontrolled emission rate exceeds that rate listed for it in Table 2 or
it is modified or reconstructed after January 10, 1989. At such time,
such facility becomes subject to §60.562-1 and the procedures identified
in §60.562-l(a) shall be used to determine the control of emissions from
the facility.
(e)(l) Modified or reconstructed affected facilities at
polystyrene and poly(ethylene terephthalate) plants with uncontrolled
emission rates at or below those identified in Table 2 are exempt from
the requirements of §60.562-1. This exemption does not apply to new
polystyrene or poly(ethylene terephthalate) affected facilities.
(2) Emissions from modified or reconstructed affected facilities
that are controlled by an existing control device and that have
uncontrolled emission rates greater than the uncontrolled threshold
emission rates identified in Table 2 are exempt from the requirements of
§60.562-1 unless and until the existing control device is modified,
reconstructed, or replaced.
(f) No process section of an experimental process line is
considered an affected facility for continuous or intermittent process
emissions.
(g) Individual vent streams that emit continuous emissions with
uncontrolled annual emissions of less than 1.6 Mg/yr or with a weight
percent TOC of less than 0.10 percent from a new, modified, or
4-6
-------
Table 2. Maximum Uncontrolled Threshold Emission Rates5
Production Process
Polypropylene, liquid phase process
Polypropylene, gas phase process
Low Density Polyethylene,
high pressure process
Low Density Polyethylene,
low pressure process
High Density Polyethylene,
liquid phase slurry process
High Density Polyethylene,
liquid phase solution process
High Density Polyethylene,
gas phase process
Polystyrene, continuous process
PolyCethylene terephthalate),
dimethyl terephthalate process
.PolyCethylene terephthalate),
terephthalic acid process
Process Section
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Product Storage
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Production Finishing
Raw Materials Preparation
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Material Recovery
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Product Finishing
Material Recovery
Material Recovery
Polymerization Reaction
Raw Materials Preparation
Polymerization Reaction
Uncontrolled
Emission Rate,
kg TOC/Mg product
0.15b
0.14b.0.24c
0.19b
1.57"
0.12C
0.02b
0.41d
e
e
e
e
0.05f
0.03*
0.01"
0.25C
0.11b
0.41"
0.24f
0.16C
1.68f
0.05f
0.03*
0.01"
O.OS"'"
0.12"'"
1.80"*'
I
Lao"*"1
3>92bXm
4-7
-------
Footnotes to Table 2.
a "Uncontrolled emission rate" refers to the emission rate of a vent stream that vents directly to the
atmosphere and to the emission rate of a vent stream to the atmosphere that would occur in the absence of
any add-on control devices but after any material recovery devices that constitute part of the normal
material recovery operations in a process line where potential emissions are recovered for recycle or
resale.
b Emission rate applies to continuous emissions only.
c Emission rate applies to intermittent emissions only.
d Total emission rate for non-emergency intermittent emissions from raw materials preparation,
polymerization reaction, material recovery, product finishing, and product storage process sections.
' See footnote d.
1 Emission rate applies to both continuous and intermittent emissions.
* Emission rate applies to non-emergency intermittent emissions only.
b Applies to modified or reconstructed affected facilities only.
' Includes emissions from the cooling water tower.
' Applies to a process line producing low viscosity poly(ethylene terephthalate).
k Applies to a process line producing high viscosity polyCethylene terephthalate).
1 See footnote m.
m Applies to the sum of emissions to the atmosphere from the polymerization reaction section (including
emissions from the cooling water tower) and the raw materials preparation section (i.e., the
esterifiers).
4-8
-------
reconstructed polypropylene or polyethylene affected facility are exempt
from the requirements of §60.562-l(a)(l). If at a later date, an
individual stream's uncontrolled annual emissions become 1.6 Mg/yr or
greater (if the stream was exempted on the basis of the uncontrolled
annual emissions exemption) or VOC concentration becomes 0.10 weight
percent or higher (if the stream was exempted on the basis of the VOC
concentration exemption), then the stream is subject to the requirements
of §60.562-1.
(h) Emergency vent streams, as defined in §60.561, from a new,
modified, or reconstructed polypropylene or polyethylene affected
facility are exempt from the requirements of §60.562-l(a)(2).
(i) An owner or operator of a polypropylene or polyethylene
affected facility that commenced construction, modification, or
reconstruction after September 30, 1987, and on or before January 10,
1989, and that is in a process line in which more than one type of
polyolefin (i.e., polypropylene, low density polyethylene, high density
polyethylene, or their copolymers) is produced shall select one of the
polymer/production process combinations in Table 1 for purposes of
determining applicable affected facilities and uncontrolled threshold
emission rates.
[Note: The numerical emission limits in these standards are expressed
in terms of total organic compounds, measured as total organic compounds
less methane and ethane.]
4-9
-------
§60.561 Definitions
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have
the meaning given them in the Act, in Subpart A of Part 60, or in
Subpart VV of Part 60, and the following terms shall have the specific
meanings given them.
Boiler means any enclosed combustion device that extracts useful
energy in the form of steam.
Capital expenditure means, in addition to the definition in
40 CFR 60.2, an expenditure for a physical or operational change to an
existing facility that exceeds P, the product of the facility's
replacement cost, R, and an adjusted annual asset guideline repair
allowance, A, as reflected by the following equation: P = R x A, where
(a) The adjusted annual asset guideline repair allowance, A, is
the product of the percent of the replacement cost, Y, and the
applicable basic annual asset guideline repair allowance, B, as
reflected by the following equation: A - Y x (B •*• 100);
(b) The percent Y is determined from the following equation:
Y = 1.0 - 0.57 log X, where X is 1986 minus the year of construction;
and
(c) The applicable basic annual asset guideline repair allowance,
B, is equal to 12.5.
Car-sealed means, for purposes of these standards, a seal that is
placed on the device used to change the position of a valve (e.g., from
opened to closed) such that the position of the valve cannot be changed
without breaking the seal and requiring the replacement of the old seal
once broken with a new seal.
Closed vent system means a system that is not open to the
atmosphere and that is composed of piping, connections, and, if
4-10
-------
necessary, flow inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from a
piece or pieces of equipment to a control device.
Continuous emissions means any gas stream containing VOC that is
generated essentially continuously when the process line or any piece of
equipment in the process line is operating.
Continuous process means polymerization process in which reactants
are introduced in a continuous manner and products are removed either
continuously or intermittently at regular intervals so that the process
can be operated and polymers produced essentially continuously.
Control device means an enclosed combustion device, vapor recovery
system, or flare.
Copolvmer means a polymer that has two different repeat units in
its chain.
Decomposition means, for the purposes of these standards, an event
in a polymerization reactor that advances to the point where the poly-
merization reaction becomes uncontrollable, the polymer begins to break
down (decompose), and it becomes necessary to relieve the reactor
instantaneously in order to avoid catastrophic equipment damage or
serious adverse personnel safety consequences.
Decomposition emissions refers to those emissions released from a
polymer production process as the result of a decomposition or during
attempts to prevent a decomposition.
Emergency vent stream means, for the purposes of these standards,
an intermittent emission that results from a decomposition, attempts to
prevent decompositions, power failure, equipment failure, or other
unexpected cause that requires immediate venting of gases from process
equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage. This
includes intermittent vents that occur from process equipment where
4-11
-------
normal operating parameters (e.g., pressure or temperature) are exceeded
such that the process equipment can not be returned to normal operating
conditions using the design features of the system and venting must
occur to avoid equipment failure or adverse safety personnel
consequences and to minimize adverse effects of the runaway reaction.
This does not include intermittent vents that are designed into the
process to maintain normal operating conditions of process vessels
including those vents that regulate normal process vessel pressure.
End finisher means a polymerization reaction vessel operated under
very low pressures, typically at pressures of 2 torr or less, in order
to produce high viscosity poly(ethylene terephthalate). An end finisher
is preceded in a high viscosity poly(ethylene terephthalate) process
line by one or more polymerization vessels operated under less severe
vacuums, typically between 5 and 10 torr. A high viscosity
poly(ethylene terephthalate) process line may have one or more end
finishers.
Existing control device means, for the purposes of these
standards, an air pollution control device that has been in operation on
or before September 30, 1987, or that has been in operation between
September 30, 1987, and January 10, 1989, on those continuous or
intermittent emissions from a process section that is marked by an "--"
in Table 1 of this subpart.
Existing control device is reconstructed means, for the purposes
of these standards, the capital expenditure of at least 50 percent of
the replacement cost of the existing control device.
Existing control device is replaced means, for the purposes of
these standards, the replacement of an existing control device with
another control device.
4-12
-------
Expandable polystyrene means a polystyrene bead to which a blowing
agent has been added using either an in-situ suspension process or a
post-impregnation suspension process.
Experimental process line means a polymer or copolymer
manufacturing process line with the sole purpose of operating to
evaluate polymer manufacturing processes, technologies, or products. An
experimental process line does not produce a polymer or resin that is
sold or that is used as a raw material for nonexperimental process
lines.
Flame zone means that portion of the combustion chamber in a
boiler occupied by the flame envelope.
Fugitive emissions equipment means each pump, compressor, pressure
relief device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line,
valve, and flange or other connector in VOC service and any devices or
systems required by Subpart VV of this part.
Gas phase process means a polymerization process in which the
polymerization process is carried out in the gas phase; i.e., the
monomer(s) are gases in a fluidized bed of catalyst particles and
granular polymer.
High density polyethylene (HOPE) means a thermoplastic polymer or
copolymer comprised of at least 50 percent ethylene by weight and having
a density of greater than 0.940 g/cm3.
High pressure process means the conventional production process
for the manufacture of low density polyethylene in which a reaction
pressure of about 15,000 psig or greater is used.
High viscosity polv(ethv1ene terephthalate) means poly(ethylene
terephthalate) that has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.9 or higher and is
used in such applications as tire cord and seat belts.
4-13
-------
Incinerator means an enclosed combustion device that is used for
destroying VOC.
In-situ suspension process means a manufacturing process in which
styrene, blowing agent, and other raw materials are added together
within a reactor for the production of expandable polystyrene.
Intermittent emissions means those gas streams containing VOC that
are generated at intervals during process line operation and includes
both planned and emergency releases.
Liquid phase process means a polymerization process in which the
polymerization reaction is carried out in the liquid phase; i.e., the
monomer(s) and any catalyst are dissolved, or suspended in a liquid
solvent.
Liquid phase slurry process means a liquid phase polymerization
process in which the monomer(s) are in solution (completely dissolved)
in a liquid solvent, but the polymer is in the form of solid particles
suspended in the liquid reaction mixture during the polymerization
reaction; sometimes called a particle form process.
Liquid phase solution process means a liquid phase polymerization
process in which both the monomer(s) and polymer are in solution
— *
(completely dissolved) in the liquid reaction mixture.
Low density polyethylene (LDPE) means a thermoplastic polymer or
copolymer comprised of at least 50 percent ethylene by weight and having
a density of 0.940 g/cm5 or less.
Low pressure process means a production process for the
manufacture of low density polyethylene in which a reaction pressure
markedly below that used in a high pressure process is used. Reaction
pressure of current low pressure processes typically go up to about 300
psig.
4-14
-------
Low viscosity oolvfethvlene tereohthalate) means a poly(ethylene
terephthalate) that has an intrinsic viscosity of less than 0.75 and is
used in such applications as clothing, bottle, and film production.
Material recovery section means the equipment that recovers
unreacted or by-product materials from any process section for return to
the process line, off-site purification or treatment, or sale.
Equipment designed to separate unreacted or by-product material from the
polymer product are to be included in this process section, provided at
least some of the material is recovered for reuse in the process, off-
site purification or treatment, or sale, at the time the process section
becomes an affected facility. Otherwise such equipment are to be
assigned to one of the other process sections, as appropriate.
Equipment that treats recovered materials are to be included in this
process section, but equipment that also treats raw materials are not to
be included in this process section. The latter equipment are to be
included in the raw materials preparation section. If equipment is used
to return unreacted or by-product material directly to the same piece of
process equipment from which it was emitted, then that equipment is
considered part of the process section that contains the process
— *
equipment. If equipment is used to recover unreacted or by-product
material from a process section and return it to another process section
or a different piece of process equipment in the same process section or
sends it off-site for purification, treatment, or sale, then such
equipment are considered part of a material recovery section. Equipment
used for the on-site recovery of ethylene glycol from poly(ethylene
terephthalate) plants, however, are not included in the material
recovery section, but are covered under the standards applicable to the
polymerization reaction section [§60.562-l(c)(l)(ii)(A) or (2)(ii)(A)].
4-15
-------
Operating day means, for the purposes of these standards, any
calendar day during which equipment used in the manufacture of polymer
was operating for at least 8 hours or one labor shift, whichever is
shorter. Only operating days shall be used in determining compliance
with the standards specified in §60.562-l(c)(l)(ii)(B), (l)(ii)(C),
(2)(ii)(B), and (2)(ii)(C). Any calendar day in which equipment is used
for less than 8 hours or one labor shift, whichever is less, is not an
"operating day" and shall not be used as part of the rolling 14-day
period for determining compliance with the standards specified in
§60.562-l(c)(l)(11)(B), (l)(ii)(C), (2)(ii)(B), and (2)(ii)(C).
Polyethylene means a thermoplastic polymer or copolymer comprised
of at least 50 percent ethylene by weight; see low density polyethylene
and high density polyethylene.
Polvfethvlene tereohthalate) (PET) means a polymer or copolymer
comprised of at least 50 percent bis-(2-hydroxyethyl)-terephthalate
(BHET) by weight.
Polyfethylene terephthalate) (PET) manufacture using dimethyl
tereohthalate means the manufacturing of poly(ethylene terephthalate)
based on the esterification of dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) with
„ *
ethylene glycol to form the intermediate monomer bis-(2-hydroxyethyl)-
terephthalate (BHET) that is subsequently polymerized to PET.
Polyfethvlene terephthalate) (PET) manufacture using terephthalic
acid means the manufacturing of poly(ethylene terephthalate) based on
the esterification reaction of terephthalic acid (TPA) with ethylene
glycol to form the intermediate monomer bis-(2-hydroxyethy1)-
terephthalate (BHET) that is subsequently polymerized to form PET.
Polymerization reaction section means the equipment designe'd to
cause monomer(s) to react to form polymers, including equipment designed
4-16
-------
primarily to cause the formation of short polymer chains (oligomers or
low polymers), but not including equipment designed to prepare raw
materials for polymerization, e.g., esterification vessels. For the
purposes of these standards, the polymerization reaction section begins
with the equipment used to transfer the materials from the raw materials
preparation section and ends with the last vessel in which
polymerization occurs. Equipment used for the on-site recovery of
ethylene glycol from poly(ethylene terephthalate) plants, however, are
included in this process section, rather than in the material recovery
process section.
Polypropylene (PP) means a thermoplastic polymer or copolymer
comprised of at least 50 percent propylene by weight.
Polystyrene (PS) means a thermoplastic polymer or copolymer
comprised of at least 80 percent styrene or para-methylstyrene by
weight.
Post-impregnation suspension process means a manufacturing process
in which polystyrene beads are first formed in a suspension process,
washed, dried, or otherwise finished and then added with a blowing agent
to another reactor in which the beads and blowing agent are reacted to
produce expandable polystyrene.
Process heater means a device that transfers heat liberated by
burning fuel to fluids contained in tubular coils, including all fluids
except water that is heated to produce steam.
Process'line means a group of equipment assembled that can operate
independently if supplied with sufficient raw materials to produce
polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene (general purpose, crystal, or
expandable) or poly(ethylene terephthalate) or one of their copolymers.
A process line consists of the equipment in the following process
4-17
-------
sections (to the extent that these process sections are present at a
plant): raw materials preparation, polymerization reaction, product
finishing, product storage, and material recovery.
Process section means the equipment designed to accomplish a
general but well-defined task in polymer production. Process sections
include raw materials preparation, polymerization reaction, material
recovery, product finishing, and product storage and may be dedicated to
a single process line or common to more than one process line.
Process unit means equipment assembled to perform any of the
physical and chemical operations in the production of polypropylene,
polyethylene, polystyrene (general purpose, crystal, or expandable), or
poly(ethylene terephthalate) or one of their copolymers. A process unit
can operate independently if supplied with sufficient feed or raw
materials and sufficient storage facilities for the product. Examples
of process units are raw materials handling and monomer recovery.
Product finishing section means the equipment that treats, shapes,
or modifies the polymer or resin to produce the finished end
product of the particular facility, including equipment that prepares
the product for product finishing. For the purposes of these standards,
the product finishing section begins with the equipment used to transfer
the polymerized product from the polymerization reaction section and
ends with the last piece of equipment that modifies the characteristics
of the polymer. Product finishing equipment may accomplish product
separation, extruding and pelletizing, cooling and drying, blending,
additives introduction, curing, or annealing. Equipment used to
separate unreacted or by-product material from the product are to be
included in this process section, provided the material separated from
the polymer product is not recovered at the time the process section
4-18
-------
becomes an affected facility. If the material is being recovered, then
the separation equipment are to be included in the material recovery
section. Product finishing does not include polymerization, the
physical mixing of the pellets to obtain a homogenous mixture of the
polymer (except as noted below), or the shaping (such as fiber spinning,
molding, or fabricating) or modification (such as fiber stretching and
crimping) of the finished end product. If physical mixing occurs in
equipment located between product finishing equipment (i.e., before all
the chemical and physical characteristics have been "set" by virtue of
having passed through the last piece of equipment in the product
finishing section), then such equipment are to be included in this
process section. Equipment used to physically mix the finished product
that are located after last piece of equipment in the product finishing
section are part of the product storage section.
Product storage section means the equipment that is designed to
store the finished polymer or resin end product of the particular
facility. For the purposes of these standards, the product storage
section begins with the equipment used to transfer the finished product
•
out of the product finishing section and ends with the containers used
to store the final product. Any equipment used after the product
finishing section to recover unreacted or by-product material are to be
considered part of a material recovery section. Product storage does
not include any intentional modification of the characteristics of any
polymer or resin product, but does include equipment that provide a
uniform mixture of product, provided such equipment are used after the
last product finishing piece of equipment. This process section also
does not include the shipment of a finished polymer or resin product to
another facility for further finishing or fabrication.
4-19
-------
Raw materials preparation section means the equipment located at a
polymer manufacturing plant designed to prepare raw materials, such as
monomers and solvents, for polymerization. For the purposes of these
standards, this process section begins with the equipment used to
transfer raw materials from storage and recovered material from material
recovery process sections, and ends with the last piece of equipment
that prepares the material for polymerization. The raw materials
preparation section may include equipment that accomplishes
purification, drying, or other treatment of raw materials or of raw and
recovered materials together, activation of catalysts, and
esterification including the formation of some short polymer chains
(oligomers), but does not include equipment that is designed primarily
to accomplish the formation of oligomers, the treatment of recovered
materials alone, or the storage of raw materials.
Recovery system means an individual unit or series of material
recovery units, such as absorbers, condensers, and carbon adsorbers,
used for recovering volatile organic compounds.
Total organic compounds (TOO means those compounds measured
according to the procedures specified in §60.564.
Vent stream means any gas stream released to the atmosphere
directly from an emission source or indirectly either through another
piece of process equipment or a material recovery device that
constitutes part of the normal recovery operations in a polymer process
line where potential emissions are recovered for recycle or resale, and
any gas stream directed to an air pollution control device. The
emissions released from an air pollution control device are not
considered a vent stream unless, as noted above, the control device is
4-20
-------
part of the normal material recovery operations in a polymer process
line where potential emissions are recovered for recycle or resale.
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) means, for the purposes of these
standards, any reactive organic compounds as defined in §60.2
Definitions.
4-21
-------
§60.562-1 Standards: Process emissions
(a) Polypropylene, low density polyethylene, and high density
polyethylene. Each owner or operator of a polypropylene, low density
polyethylene, or high density polyethylene process line containing a
process section subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply
with the provisions in this section on and after the date on which the
initial performance test required by §60.8 is completed, but not later
than 60 days after achieving the maximum production rate at which the
affected facility will be operated, or 180 days after initial startup,
whichever comes first.
(1) Continuous Emissions. For each vent stream that emits
continuous emissions from an affected facility as defined in
§60.560(a)(l), the owner or operator shall use the procedures identified
in paragraphs (a)(l)(ii) and (iii) of this section for determining which
continuous emissions are to be controlled and which level of control
listed in paragraph (a)(l)(i) of this section is to be met. The owner
or operator shall use the procedures identified in paragraphs (a)(l)(ii)
and (iii) of this section each time a process section is constructed,
modified, or reconstructed at the plant site.
(i) Level of Control. Continuous emission streams determined to
be subject to control pursuant to the procedures identified in
paragraphs (a)(l)(ii) and (iii) of this section, as applicable, shall
meet one of the control levels identified in paragraphs (a)(l)(i)(A)
through (D) of this section. The procedures in paragraphs (a)(l)(ii)
and (iii) of this section identify which level of control may be met.
The level of control identified in paragraph (a)(l)(i)(0) of this
section is limited to certain continuous emission streams, which are
4-22
-------
identified through the procedures in paragraphs (a)(l)(ii) and (iii) of
this section.
(A) Reduce emissions of total organic compounds (minus methane
and ethane) (TOC) by 98 weight percent, or to a concentration of 20
parts per millions by volume (ppmv) on a dry basis, whichever is less
stringent. The TOC is expressed as the sum of the actual compounds, not
carbon equivalents. If an owner or operator elects to comply with the
20 ppmv standard, the concentration shall include a correction to 3
percent oxygen only when supplemental combustion air is used to combust
the vent stream.
(B) Combust the emissions in a boiler or process heater with a
design heat input capacity of 150 million Btu/hour or greater by
introducing the vent stream into the flame zone of the boiler or process
heater. (Note: A boiler or process heater of lesser design heat capa-
city may be used, but must demonstrate compliance with paragraph
(a)(l)(i)(A) of this section.)
(C) Combust the emissions in a flare that meets the conditions
specified in §60.18. If the flare is used to control both continuous
and intermittent emissions, the flare shall meet the conditions
specified in §60.18 at all times (i.e., when controlling continuous
emissions alone or when controlling both continuous and intermittent
emissions).
(D) Vent the emissions to a control device located on the plant
site.
(ii) Uncontrolled Continuous Emissions. For each vent stream
that emits continuous emissions from an affected facility as defined in
§60.560(a)(1) and that is not controlled in an existing control device,
the owner or operator shall use the procedures identified in Table 3 to
4-23
-------
identify those continuous emissions from each constructed, modified, or
reconstructed affected facility that are to be controlled. The owner
shall include in the procedure all uncontrolled continuous vent streams
from previously constructed, modified, or reconstructed affected
facilities at the plant site each time a process section is constructed,
modified, or reconstructed at the plant site. In applying the
procedures shown in Table 3, the stream characteristics may be either
measured or calculated as specified in §60.564(d). For modified or
reconstructed affected facilities, these stream characteristics are to
be determined after a modification or reconstruction determination has
been made by the Administrator, but before any actual changes have been
undertaken, and then again after the actual changes have been made.
Figure 1 provides a summary overview of the control determination
procedure described in Table 3.
(iii) Controlled Continuous Emissions. For each vent stream that
emits continuous emissions from an affected facility as defined in
§60.560(a)(l) and that is controlled in an existing control device, each
owner or operator shall determine whether the emissions entering the
control device are greater than or equal to the calculated threshold
emissions (CTE) level, which is to be calculated using the TOC
concentration of the inlet vent stream and the equations in footnote b
of Table 3. If the inlet stream's TOC concentration is equal to or less
than 20 weight percent, the calculated threshold emissions level is 18.2
Mg/yr. If multiple emission streams are vented to the control device,
the individual streams are not to be separated into individual weight
percent ranges for calculation purposes as would be done for
uncontrolled emission streams. Emissions vented to an existing control
device are required to be controlled as described in paragraphs
4-24
-------
Table 3. Procedure for Determining Control and Applicable Standard for Continuous Emission Streams from New,
Modified, or Reconstructed Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
Procedure'
Applicable TOC
Weight Percent Range
Control/No Control
Crjterja
Applicable Standard
1. Sum all uncontrolled streams with
TOC weight percent within the
applicable weight percent range
from all affected facilities
at a plant site.
2. Calculate total uncontrolled
annual emissions for each weight
percent range. For modified or
affected facilities, use the total
uncontrolled emissions after
modification or reconstruction.
3. Calculate composite TOC concentra-
tion (weight percent) for streams
in the 0.10 to less than 5.5 weight
percent range and for streams in the
5.5 to less than 20 weight percent
range. For modified or reconstructed
affected facilities, calculate the
composite VOC concentration before
and after modification and recon-
struction.
Select the higher of the two TOC
concentrations for each weight
percent range for vent streams
from a modified or reconstructed
affected facility.
Calculate the threshold emissions
for the 0.10 to less than 5.5
weight percent range and for
the 5.5 to less than 20 weight
percent range using the
respective composite TOC con-
centration selected above.
0.10 < 5.5
5.5 < 20
20 to 100
1. If total combined uncontrolled
emissions are equal to or grea-
ter than the calculated thres-
hold emissions (CTE) , control.
1. §60.562-1(a)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C)
If total combined uncontrolled
emission are less than the CTE ,
control only individual streams
with volume flow rates of 8
scfm or less.
2. §60.562-1(a)(1)(i)(A) through (D)
1. If total combined uncontrolled
emissions are equal to or grea-
ter than CTE, control.
1. §60.562-1(a)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C)
2. If total combined uncontrolled
emissions are less than the
CTE , control only individual
streams with volume flow rates
of 8 scfm or less.
2. §60.562-1(a)(1)(i)(A) through (D)
1. If total combined uncontrolled
emissions are equal to or grea-
ter than 18.2 Mg/yr, control.
1. §60.562-U8)(1)(i)(M, (B), or (C)
2. If total combined uncontrolled
emissions are less than 18.2
Hg/yr, control.
2. §60.562-1(a)(1)(i)(A) through (D)
-------
Footnotes to Table 3.
a Individual streams excluded under paragraph §60.560(g) from the requirements of §60.562-1 are to be excluded from all calculations in this table.
This paragraph exempts all individual emission streams with individual uncontrolled annual emission rates of less than 1.6 Mg/yr and all
individual emission streams with individual TOC concentrations of less than 0.10 percent TOC by weight.
'' For the 0.10 to less than 5.5 weight percent range, the following equations are used:
If the percent composite Use this equation to
TOC concentration is calculate threshold emissions —
0.10 < 0.12 (a x 7.5 x 106) + 226
0.12 < 0.2 (b x 58.3) + 116.8
0.2 < 0.3 (c x 3020) + 71.8
0.3 < 0.4 (d x 547) + 54.5
0.4 < 0.6 48.3 + 31 (0.6 - weight percent TOC)
0.6 < 5.5 48.3
where: a = (0.12 - weight percent TOC)
0.18 °5
i5
b = weight percent TOC
weight percent TOC
c = (0.3 - weight percent TOC)2
d = (0.4 - weight percent TOO15
For the 5.5 to less than 20 weight percent range, the following equations are used.
If the percent composite Use this equation to
TOC concentration is... calculate threshold emissions
5.5 < 7.0 (e x.740) «• 31
7.0 < 9.0 (f x 324) + 25.0
9.0 < 20 (g x 125) * 18.2
where: 7.0 °5
e = weight percent TOC -1
weight percent TOC
9.0 os
f = weight percent TOC
weight percent TOC
20.0 °5
g = weight percent TOC
weight percent TOC
-------
AFFECTED FACILITY HAS
UNCONTROLLED CONTINUOUS
EMISSIONS.
1.1
COMBINE INDIVIDUAL STREAMS ACCORDING TO WEIGHT
PERCENT RANGE (0.1 < 5.5. S.S < 20. 20 TO 100)
[00 NOT INCLUDE EMISSIONS FROM STREAMS
EXCLUDED UNDER 160.560(4) OR §60.S60(g)]
1.2
ADO IN ANY UNCONTROLLED EMISSION STREAMS
IN THE SAME WEIGHT PERCENT RANGE
FROM PREVIOUS AFFECTED FACILITIES.
1.3
CALCULATE TOTAL ANNUAL
EMISSIONS FOR EACH
WEIGHT PERCENT RANGE
ACCORDING TO THE
PROCEDURES IN TABLE 3.
NO
CONTROL 98%. TO 20 PPMV. IN A \
CONTROL DEVICE THAT MEETS SPECIFIED!
OPERATING CONDITIONS. OR IN AN i"*"
EXISTING CONTROL DEVICE
1.4
1.7
20 TO 100 WEIGHT
PERCENT
ARE EMISSIONS EQUAL TO OR
GREATER THAN THE CALCULATED
THRESHOLD EMISSIONS?
1.5
5.5 TO 20 WEIGHT !
PERCENT
0.1 TO 5.5 WEIGHT!
PERCENT
ARE EMISSIONS EQUAL TO OR
GREATER THAN THE CALCULATED
THRESHOLD EMISSIONS?
YES
i
NO
1.6
SPLIT STREAMS INTO
:>8 SCFM AND THOSE
<8 SCFM.
CONTROL 931. TO 20 PPMV. OR IN
A CONTROL DEVICE THAT MEETS
SPECIFIED OPERATING CONDITIONS
1.9
l.S
Ł8 SCFH
I
1.10
>8 SCFH
'1.11
NO CONTROL AT THIS TIME. RETURN TO OECISIONMAKIN6
'SŁ!SSrNEXT TIME * PROCESS SECTION BECOMES AN
AFFECTED FACILITY OR A CONTROL DEVICE IS MODIFIED.
RECONSTRUCTED. OR REPLACED (SEE FIGURE 2. SLOCK 2.3).
Figure 1. Decisionmaking Process for Uncontrolled Continuous Emissions
from Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
4-27
-------
(a)(l)(11i)(A) and (B) of this section. Figure 2 illustrates the
control determination procedure for controlled continuous emissions.
(A) If the annual emissions of the stream entering the control
device are equal to or greater than the CTE levels, then compliance with
one of the requirements identified in §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(A), (B), or (C)
is required at such time the control device is reconstructed or replaced
or has its operating conditions modified as a result of State or local
regulations (including changes in the operating permit) including those
instances where the control device is reconstructed, replaced, or
modified in its operation at the same time the existing process section
is modified or reconstructed and becomes an affected facility. If the
existing control device already complies with one of the requirements
identified in §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(A), (B), or (C), no further control is
required.
(B) If the annual emissions of the stream entering the control
device are less than the CTE level, then the requirements of §60.562-
l(a)(l)(i)(A), (B), or (C) are not applicable at that time. However, if
the control device is replaced, reconstructed, or modified at a later
date, each owner or operator shall reevaluate the applicability of these
standards. This is done by combining with the vent stream entering the
control device any uncontrolled vent streams in the same weight percent
range as the controlled vent stream and determining whether the annual
emissions of the stream entering the control device plus the applicable
uncontrolled vent streams are greater than or equal to the CTE level,
which is based on the weighted TOC concentration of the controlled vent
stream and the uncontrolled vent streams. If the annual emissions
entering the control device (including the applicable uncontrolled vent
streams) are greater than or equal to the CTE level, then compliance
4-28
-------
AFFECTED FACILITY HAS
CONTROLLED CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS
'2.1
ARE EMISSIONS EQUAL TO OR
GREATER THAN THE
CALCULATED THRESHOLD EMISSIONS?
STANDARD DOES
NOT NEED TO BE
MET AT THIS TIME.
NO
2.6
2.2
YES
CONTROL DEVICE IS MODIFIED
RECONSTRUCTED, OR REPLACED.
DOES EXISTING CONTROL
DEVICE REDUCE EMISSIONS
BY 98 PERCENT OR TO
20 PPHV OR MEET NECESSARY
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS?
2.7
ADD IN UNCONTROLLED STREAMS
IN SAME WEIGHT PERCENT
RANGE FROM PREVIOUS
AFFECTED FACILITIES.
2.8
ARE EMISSIONS NOW
EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN
THE CALCUALTED THRESHOLD
EMISSIONS?
NO
2.3
\
YES
STANDARD IS TO BE MET NEXT
TIME THE CONTROL DEVICE IS
MODIFIED, RECONSTRUCTED, OR
REPLACED. ADO IN ANY UNCON-
TROLLED EMISSIONS IN SAME
WEIGHT PERCENT RANGE FROM
ANY AFFECTED FACILITY.
NO FURTHER
CONTROL IS
REQUIRED.
2.5
2.4
NO
2.9
YES
CONTROL BY 98 PERCENT, TO 20 PPMV,
OR IN A CONTROL DEVICE THAT MEETS
SPECIFIED OPERATING CONDITIONS
2.10
NOTE: There are no individual stream exemptions for emissions already
controlled by existing control devices.
Figure 2. Decisionmaking Process for Continuous Emissions Already
Controlled at Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
4-29
-------
with one of the requirements identified in §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(A), (B),
or (C) is required at that time for both the controlled and uncontrolled
vent streams. If the annual emissions are less than the CTE level,
compliance with these standards is again not required at such time.
However, if the control device is again replaced, reconstructed, or
modified, each owner or operator shall repeat this determination
procedure.
(2) Intermittent Emissions. The owner or operator shall control
each vent stream that emits intermittent emissions from an affected
facility as defined in §60.560(a)(l) by meeting one of the control
requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
If a vent stream that emits intermittent emissions is controlled in an
existing flare, incinerator, boiler, or process heater, the requirements
of this paragraph are waived until such time the control device is
reconstructed or replaced or is modified in its operating conditions as
a result of State or local regulation, including changes in the
operating permit. This paragraph does not apply to emergency vent
streams exempted by §60.560(h) and as defined in §60.561.
(i) Combust the emissions in a flare that is:
(A) Designed for and operated with no visible emissions, except
for periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive
hours,
(B) Operated with a flame present at all times, and
(C) Designed to maintain a stable flame.
(ii) Combust the emissions in an incinerator, boiler, or process
heater. Such emissions shall be introduced into the flame zone of a
boiler or process heater.
4-30
-------
(b) Polystyrene. Each owner or operator of a polystyrene process
line containing process sections subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall comply with the provisions in this section on and after
the date on which the initial performance test required by §60.8 is
completed, but not later than 60 days after achieving the maximum
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, or 180
days after initial startup, whichever comes first. Each owner or
operator of a polystyrene process line using a continuous process shall:
(1) Limit the continuous TOC emissions from the material recovery
section by complying with one of the following:
(i) Not allow continuous TOC emissions to be greater than
0.0036 kg TOC/Mg product; or
(ii) Not allow the outlet gas stream temperature from each final
condenser in the material recovery section to exceed -25°C (-13°F). For
purposes of this standard, temperature excursions above this limit shall
not be considered a violation when such excursions occur during periods
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction; or
(iii) Comply with §60.562-l(a)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C).
(2) If continuous TOC emissions from the material recovery
section are routed through an existing emergency vapor recovery system,
then compliance with these standards is required when the emergency
vapor recovery system undergoes modification, reconstruction, or
replacement. In such instances, compliance with these standards shall
be achieved no later than 180 days after completion of the modification,
reconstruction, or replacement.
(c) Poly(ethylene terephthalate). Each owner or operator of a
poly(ethylene terephthalate) process line containing process sections
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with provisions
4-31
-------
in this section on and after the date on which the initial performance
test required by §60.8 is completed, but not later than 60 days after
achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected facility
will be operated, or 180 days after initial startup, whichever comes
first.
(1) Each owner or operator of a PET process line using a dimethyl
terephthalate process shall:
(i) Limit the continuous TOC emissions from the material recovery
section (i.e., methanol recovery) by complying with one of the
following:
(A) Not allow the continuous TOC emissions to be greater than
0.018 kg TOC/Mg product; or
(B) Not allow the outlet gas temperature from each final
condenser in the material recovery section (i.e., methanol recovery) to
exceed +3°C (+37°F). For purposes of this standard, temperature
excursions above this limit shall not be considered a violation when
such excursions occur during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction.
(ii) Limit the continuous TOC emissions and, if steam-jet
ejectors are used to provide vacuum to the polymerization reactors, the
ethylene glycol concentration from the polymerization reaction section
by complying with the appropriate standard set forth below. The
ethylene glycol concentration limits specified in paragraphs
(c)(l)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section shall be determined by the
procedures specified in §60.564(j).
(A) Not allow continuous TOC emissions from the polymerization
reaction section (including emissions from any equipment used to further
4-32
-------
recover the ethylene glycol, but excluding those emissions from the
cooling tower) to be greater than 0.02 kg TOC/Mg product; and
(B) If steam-jet ejectors are used as vacuum producers and a low
viscosity product is being produced using single or multiple end
finishers or a high viscosity product is being produced using a single
end finisher, maintain the concentration of ethylene glycol in the
liquid effluent exiting the vacuum system servicing the polymerization
reaction section at or below 0.35 percent by weight, averaged on a daily
basis over a rolling 14-day period of operating days; or
(C) If steam-jet ejectors are used as vacuum producers and a high
viscosity product is being produced using multiple end finishers,
maintain an ethylene glycol concentration in the cooling tower at or
below 6.0 percent by weight averaged on a daily basis over a rolling 14-
day period of operating days.
(2) Each owner or operator of a PET process line using a
terephthalic acid process shall:
(i) Not allow the continuous TOC emissions from the esterifica-
tion vessels in the raw materials preparation section to be greater than
0.04 kg TOC/Mg product.
(ii) Limit the continuous TOC emissions and, if steam-jet
ejectors are used to provide vacuum to the polymerization reactors, the
ethylene glycol concentration from the polymerization reaction section
by complying with the appropriate standard set forth below. The
ethylene glycol concentration limits specified in paragraphs
(c)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section shall be determined by the
procedures specified in §60.564(j).
(A) Not allow continuous TOC emissions from the polymerization
reaction section (including emissions from any equipment used to further
4-33
-------
recover the ethylene glycol, but excluding those emissions from the
cooling tower) to be greater than 0.02 kg TOC/Mg product; and
(B) If steam-jet ejectors are used as vacuum producers and a low
viscosity product is being produced using single or multiple end
finishers or a high viscosity product is being produced using a single
end finisher, maintain the concentration of ethylene glycol in the
liquid effluent exiting the vacuum system servicing the polymerization
reaction section at or below 0.35 percent by weight, averaged on a daily
basis over a rolling 14-day period of operating days; or
(C) If steam-jet ejectors are used as vacuum producers and a high
viscosity product is being produced using multiple end finishers,
maintain an ethylene glycol concentration in the cooling tower at or
below 6.0 percent by weight averaged on a daily basis over a rolling 14-
day period of operating days.
(d) Closed vent systems and control devices used to comply with
this subpart shall be operated at all times when emissions may be vented
to them.
(e) Vent systems that contain valves that could divert a vent
stream from a control device shall have car-sealed opened all valves in
the vent system from the emission source to the control device and car-
sealed closed all valves in vent system that would lead the vent stream
to the atmosphere, either directly or indirectly, bypassing the control
device.
4-34
-------
§60.562-2 Standards: Equipment leaks of VOC
(a) Each owner or operator of an affected facility subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall comply with the requirements specified
in §60.482-1 through §60.482-10 as soon as practicable, but no later
than 180 days after initial startup, except that indications of liquids
dripping from bleed ports in existing pumps in light liquid service are
not considered to be a leak as defined in §60.482-2(b)(2). For purposes
of this standard, a "bleed port" is a technologically-required feature
of the pump whereby polymer fluid used to provide lubrication and/or
cooling of the pump shaft exits the pump, thereby resulting in a visible
leak of fluid. This exemption expires when the existing pump is
replaced or reconstructed.
(b) An owner or operator may elect to comply with the
requirements specified in §60.483-1 and §60.483-2.
(c) An owner or operator may apply to the Administrator for a
determination of equivalency for any means of emission limitation that
achieves a reduction in emissions of VOC at least equivalent to the
reduction in emissions of VOC achieved by the controls required in this
subpart. In doing so, the owner or operator shall comply with
requirements specified in §60.484.
(d) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall comply with the provisions specified in §60.485 except an
owner or operator may use the following provision in addition to
§60.485(e): Equipment is in light liquid service if the percent
evaporated is greater than 10 percent at 150°C as determined by ASTM
Method D86-78 (incorporated by reference as specified in §60.17).
(e) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall comply with §60.486 and §60.487.
4-35
-------
§60.563 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Whenever a particular item of monitoring equipment is
specified in this section to be installed, the owner or operator shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to manufacturer's
specifications that item as follows:
(1) A temperature monitoring device to measure and record
continuously the operating temperature to within 1 percent (relative to
degrees Celsius) or + 0.5°C (± 0.9°F), whichever is greater.
(2) A flame monitoring device, such as a thermocouple, an ultra-
violet sensor, an infrared beam sensor, or similar device to indicate
and record continuously whether a flare or pilot light flame is present,
as specified.
(3) A flow monitoring indicator to indicate and record whether or
not flow exists at least once every fifteen minutes.
(4) An organic monitoring device (based on a detection principle
such as infrared, photoionization, or thermal conductivity) to indicate
and record continuously the concentration level of organic compounds.
(5) A specific gravity monitoring device to measure and record
continuously to within 0.02 specific gravity unit.
(b) The owner or operator shall install, as applicable, the moni-
toring equipment for the control means used to comply with §60.562-1,
except §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D), as follows:
(1) If the control equipment is an incinerator:
(i) For a noncatalytic incinerator, a temperature monitoring
device shall be installed in the firebox.
(ii) For a catalytic incinerator, temperature monitoring devices
shall be installed in the gas stream immediately before and after the
catalytic bed.
4-36
-------
(2) If a flare is used:
(i) A flame monitoring device shall be installed to indicate the
presence of a flare flame or a flame for each pilot light, if the flare
is used to comply with §60.562-l(a)(l), including those flares
controlling both continuous and intermittent emissions.
(ii) A thermocouple or equivalent monitoring device to indicate
the presence of a flame at each pilot light, if used to comply with
§60.562-l(a)(2).
(3) If a boiler or process heater is used:
(i) If the boiler or process heater has a heat input design
capacity of less than 150 million Btu/hr, a temperature monitoring
device shall be installed between the radiant section and the convection
zone for watertube boilers and between the furnace (combustion zone) and
the firetubes for firetube boilers.
(ii) If the boiler or process heater has a heat input design
capacity of 150 million Btu/hr or greater, such records to indicate the
periods of operation of the boiler or process heater shall be
maintained. The records must be readily available for inspection.
(4) If an absorber is the final unit in a system:
(i) A temperature monitoring device and a specific gravity
monitoring device for the scrubber liquid shall be installed, or
(ii) An organic monitoring device shall be installed at the
outlet of the absorber.
(5) If a condenser is the final unit in a system:
(i) A temperature monitoring device shall be installed at the
condenser exit (product side), or
(ii) An organic monitoring device shall be installed at the
outlet of the condenser.
4-37
-------
(6) If a carbon adsorber is the final unit in a system, an
organic monitoring device shall be installed at the outlet of the carbon
bed.
(c) Owners or operators of control devices used to comply with
the provisions of this subpart, except §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D), shall
monitor these control devices to ensure that they are operated and
maintained in conformance with their designs.
(d) Owners or operators using a vent system that contains valves
that could divert a vent stream from a control device used to comply
with the provisions of this subpart shall do one or a combination of the
following:
(1) Install a flow indicator immediately downstream of each valve
that if opened would allow a vent stream to bypass the control device
and be emitted, either directly or indirectly, to the atmosphere. The
flow indicator shall be capable of recording flow at least once every
fifteen minutes.
(2) Monitor the valves once a month, checking the position of the
valves and the condition of the car seal, and identify all times when
the car seals have been broken and the valve position has been changed
(i.e., from opened to closed for valves in the vent piping to the
control device and from closed to open for valves that allow the stream
to be vented directly or indirectly to the atmosphere).
(e) An owner or operator complying with the standards specified
under §60.562-1, except §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D), with control devices
other than an incinerator, boiler, process heater, flare, absorber,
condenser, or carbon adsorber or by any other means shall provide to the
Administrator information describing the operation of the control device
and the process parameter(s) which would indicate proper operation and
4-38
-------
maintenance of the device. The Administrator may request further
information and will specify appropriate monitoring procedures or
requirements.
4-39
-------
§60.564 Test methods and procedures.
(a) In conducting the performance tests required in §60.8, the
owner or operator shall use as reference methods and procedures the test
methods in Appendix A of this part or other methods and procedures
specified in this section, except as provided under §60.8(b). Owners or
operators complying with §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D) need not perform a
performance test on the control device, provided the control device is
not used to comply with any other requirement of §60.562-l(a).
(1) Whenever changes are made in production capacity, feedstock
type or catalyst type, or whenever there is replacement, removal, or
addition of a control device, each owner or operator shall conduct a
performance test according to the procedures in this section as
appropriate, in order to determine compliance with §60.562-1.
(2) Where a boiler or process heater with a design heat input
capacity of 150 million Btu/hour or greater is used, the requirement for
an initial performance test is waived, in accordance with §60.8(b).
However, the Administrator reserves the option to require testing at
such other times as may be required, as provided for in §114 of the Act.
(3) The owner or operator shall determine the average organic
concentration for each performance test run using the equipment
described in §60.563(a)(4). The average organic concentration shall be
determined from measurements taken at least every 15 minutes during each
performance test run. The average of the three runs shall be the base
value for the monitoring program.
(4) When an absorber is the final unit in the system, the owner
or operator shall determine the average specific gravity for each
performance test run using specific gravity monitoring equipment
described in §60.563(a)(5). An average specific gravity shall be
4-40
-------
determined from measurements taken at least every 15 minutes during each
performance test run. The average of the three runs shall be the base
value for the monitoring program.
(5) When a condenser is the final unit in the system, the owner
or operator shall determine the average outlet temperature for each
performance test run using the temperature monitoring equipment
described in §60.563(a)(l). An average temperature shall be determined
from measurements taken at least every 15 minutes during each
performance test run while the vent stream is normally routed and
constituted. The average of the three runs shall be the base value for
the monitoring program.
(b) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the
emission concentration standard in §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(A) or (b)(l)(iii)
if applicable [if not, see paragraph (c) of this section] as follows:
(1) The TOC concentration is the sum of the individual components
and shall be computed for each run using the following equation:
n
CTOC = Z Cj
j-l
where:
CTOC = Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane),
dry basis, ppmv.
Cj = the concentration of sample component j, ppm.
n = Number of components in the sample.
(i) Method 18 shall be used to determine the concentration of
each individual organic component (Cj) in the gas stream. Method 1 or
1A, as appropriate, shall be used to determine the sampling site at the
outlet of the control device. Method 4 shall be used to determine the
moisture content, if necessary.
4-41
-------
(ii) The sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which
either an integrated sample or four grab samples shall be taken. If
grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at 15 minute
intervals.
(2) If supplemental combustion air is used, the TOC concentration
shall be corrected to 3 percent oxygen and shall be computed using the
following equation:
where:
CCORR = Concentration of TOC corrected to 3 percent oxygen,
dry basis, ppm by volume.
CMEAS = Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane),
dry basis, ppm by volume, as calculated in
paragraph (1) above.
%02d = Concentration of 02, dry basis, percent by volume.
(i) The emission rate correction factor, integrated sampling and
analysis procedure of Method 3 shall be used to determine the oxygen
concentration (%02d). The sampling site shall be the same as that of
the TOC sample and the samples shall be taken during the same time that
the TOC samples are taken,
(c) If paragraph (b) of this section is not applicable, then the
owner or operator shall determine compliance with the percent emission
reduction standard in §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(A) or (b)(l)(111) as follows:
(1) The emission reduction of TOC (minus methane and ethane)
shall be determined using the following equation:
Hnlet " ^outlet
x 100
where: P = Percent emission reduction, by weight.
Mass rate °f TOC entering the control device,
kg TOC/hr.
4-42
-------
Eoutiet * Mass rate of Toc> discharged to
the atmosphere, kg TOC/hr.
(2) The mass rates of TOC (En E0) shall be computed using the
following equations:
E, = K, ( Z C^JQ,
J=l
EO - K, ( Z CojMoj) Q0
J ^
where:
Cfj,Coj = Concentration of sample component "j" of the gas
stream at the inlet and outlet of the control
device, respectively, dry basis, ppmv.
Mij»Moj = Molecular weight of sample component "j" of the gas
stream at the inlet and outlet of the control
device respectively, g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole).
Q,-,Q0 = Flow rate of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet
of the control device, respectively, dscm/hr
(dscf/hr).
K, = 4.157 x 10'8 I(kg)/g-mole)]/[(g)(PPm)(dscm)]
(5.711 x 10'1* [(lb)/(lb-mole)]/(lb)(ppm)(dscf)]}.
(i) Method 18 shall be used to determine the concentration of
each individual organic component (C,-j, COJ.) in the gas stream. Method 1
or 1A, as appropriate, shall be used to determine the inlet and outlet
sampling sites. The inlet site shall be before the inlet of the control
device and after all product recovery units.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D, as appropriate, shall be used to
determine the volumetric flow rates (Qp Q0). If necessary, Method 4
shall be used to determine the moisture content. Both determinations
shall be compatible with the Method 18 determinations.
(iii) Inlet and outlet samples shall be taken simultaneously.
The sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which either an
4-43
-------
integrated sample or four grab samples shall be taken. If grab sampling
is used, then the samples shall be taken at 15 minute intervals.
(d) An owner or operator shall determine compliance with the
individual stream exemptions in §60.560(g) and the procedures specified
in Table 3 for compliance with §60.562-l(a)(l) as identified in
paragraphs (d)(l) and (2) of this section. An owner or operator using
the procedures specified in §60.562-l(a)(l) for determining which
continuous process emissions are to be controlled may use calculations
demonstrated to be sufficiently accurate as to preclude the necessity of
actual testing for purposes of calculating the uncontrolled annual
emissions and weight percent of TOC. Owners or operators seeking to
exempt streams under §60.560(g) must use the appropriate test procedures
specified in this section.
(1) The uncontrolled annual emissions of the individual vent
stream shall be determined using the following equation:
n
^unc = ^ ( I CjMr) Q x 8,600 x 1 Mg
j-1 1,000 kg
where: E^ = uncontrolled annual emissions, Mg/yr
Cj = concentration of sample component "j" of the gas
stream, dry basis, ppmv.
Mj = Molecular weight of sample component "j" of the gas
stream, g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole).
Q = Flow rate of the gas stream, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
K, = 4.157 x 10-8r(kg)/g-mole)]/[(g)(ppm)(dscm)]
(5.711 x 10'1? [(1b)/(lb-mole)]/(lb)(ppm)(dscf)]}
8,600 = operating hours per year
(i) Method 18 shall be used to determine the concentration of
each individual organic component (Cj) in the gas stream. Method 1 or
4-44
-------
1A, as appropriate, shall be used to determine the sampling site. If
the gas stream is controlled in an existing control device, the sampling
site shall be before the inlet of the control device and after all
product recovery units.
(11) Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D, as appropriate, shall be used to
determine the volumetric flow rate (Q). If necessary, Method 4 shall be
used to determine the moisture content. Both determinations shall be
compatible with the Method 18 determinations.
(iii) The sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which
either an integrated sample or four grab samples shall be taken. If
grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at 15 minute
intervals.
(2) The weight percent VOC of the uncontrolled individual vent
stream shall be determined using the following equation:
n
Z C; Mj
weight % TOC = .i-1 x 100
MWgas x 106
where: Cj = concentration of sample TOC component "j" of the gas
stream, dry basis, ppmv.
Mj = Molecular weight of sample TOC component "j" of the
gas stream, g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole).
MWgas = Average molecular weight of the entire gas stream,
g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole).
(i) Method 18 shall be used to determine the concentration of
each individual organic component (Cj) in the gas stream. Method 1 or
1A, as appropriate, shall be used to determine the sampling site. If
the gas stream is controlled in an existing control device, the sampling
site shall be before the inlet of the control device and after all
product recovery units. If necessary, Method 4 shall be used to
4-45
-------
determine the moisture content. This determination shall be compatible
with the Method 18 determinations.
(ii) The average molecular weight of the gas stream shall be
determined using methods approved by the Administrator. If the carrier
component of the gas stream is nitrogen, then an average molecular
weight of 28 g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole) may be used in lieu of testing. If
the carrier component of the gas stream is air, then an average
molecular weight of 29 g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole) may be used in lieu of
testing.
(iii) The sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which
either an integrated sample or four grab samples shall be taken. If
grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at 15 minute
intervals.
(e) The owner or operator shall determine compliance of flares
with the visible emission and flare provisions in §60.562-1 as follows:
(1) Method 22 shall be used to determine visible emission. The
observation period for each run shall be 2 hours.
(2) The monitoring device of §60.563(b)(2) shall be used to
determine whether a flame is present.
(f) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the net
heating value provisions in §60.18 as referenced by §60.562-
l(a)(l)(i)(C). The net heating value of the process vent stream being
combusted in a flare shall be computed as follows:
HT = K2 (Z CjHj)
j-l
where: HT = Net heating value of the sample based on the net
enthalpy per mole of offgas combusted at 25°C and
760 mmHg, but the standard temperature for determining
the volume corresponding to one mole is 20°C, MJ/scm.
4-46
-------
K2 = Conversion constant, 1.740 x 10'7( 1 )(g moleU MJ ).
ppm scm kcal
where standard temperature for (q mole) is 20°C;
scm
Cj = Concentration of sample component j in ppm on a wet
basis.
HJ = Net heat of combustion of sample component j, at 25°C
and 760 mm Hg, kcal/g-mole.
(1) Method 18 shall be used to determine the concentration of
each individual organic component (Cj) in the gas stream. Method 1 or
1A, as appropriate, shall be used to determine the sampling site to the
inlet of the flare. Using this same sample, ASTM D1946-77 (incorporated
by reference—see §60.17) shall be used to determine the hydrogen and
carbon monoxide content.
(2) The sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which
either an integrated sample or four grab samples shall be taken. If
grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at 15 minute
intervals.
(3) Published or calculated values shall be used for the net
heats of combustion of the sample components. If values are not
published or cannot be calculated, ASTM D2382-76 (incorporated by
reference—see §60.17) may be used to determine the net heat of
combustion of component "j."
(g) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the
exit velocity provisions in §60.18 as reference by §60.562-l(a)(l)(1)(C)
as follows:
(1) If applicable, the net heating value (HT) of the process vent
shall be determined according to the procedures in paragraph (f) of this
section to determine the applicable velocity requirements.
4-47
-------
(2) If applicable, the maximum permitted velocity (Vmax) for
steam-assisted and nonassisted flares shall be computed using the
following equation:
L°9io(V«) - (Hr + 28.8)/31.7 .
where: V^ = Maximum permitted velocity, m/sec.
28.8 = Constant.
31.7 = Constant.
HT = The net heating value as determined
in paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) The maximum permitted velocity, Vmax> for air-assisted flares
shall be determined by the following equation:
Vmax " 8'706 + 0.7084(HT)
where: V^ = Maximum permitted velocity, m/sec.
8.706 = Constant.
0.7084 = Constant.
HT = The net heating value as determined in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(4) The actual exit velocity of a flare shall be determined by
dividing the volumetric flow rate (in units of standard temperature and
pressure), as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D as appropriate, by
the unobstructed (free) cross sectional area of the flare tip.
(h) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the
mass emission per mass product standards in §§60.560(d) and (e) and in
§§60.562-l(b)(l)(i), (c)(l)(i)(A), (c)(l)(ii)(A), (c)(2)(i), and
(c)(2)(ii)(A). The emission rate of TOC shall be computed using the
following equation:
ETOC
ERTOC = 1 Me
P. x 1,000 kg
4-48
-------
where: ERTOC = Emission rate of total organic compounds (minus
methane and ethane), kg TOC/Mg product.
ETOC = Emission rate of total organic compounds (minus
methane and ethane) in the sample, kg/hr.
Pp = The rate of polymer produced, kg/hr.
(1) The mass rate of TOC, ETOC, shall be determined according to
the procedures, as appropriate, in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
The sampling site for determining compliance with §§60.560(d) and (e)
shall be before any add-on control devices and after all product
recovery devices. Otherwise, the sampling site shall be at the outlet
of the control device.
(2) The rate of polymer produced, P (kg/hr), shall be determined
by dividing the weight of polymer pulled in kilograms (kg) from the
process line during the performance test by the number of hours (hr)
taken to perform the performance test. The polymer pulled, in
kilograms, shall be determined by direct measurement or, subject to
prior approval by the Administrator, computed from materials balance by
good engineering practice.
(i) The owner or operator shall determine continuous compliance
with the temperature requirements in §§60.562-l(b)(l)(ii) and 60.562-
l(c)(l)(i)(B) by using the temperature monitoring equipment described in
§60.563(a)(l). An average temperature shall be determined from
measurements taken at least every 15 minutes every three hours while the
vent stream is normally routed and constituted. Each three-hour period
constitutes a performance test.
(j) For purposes of determining compliance with §60.562-
l(c)(l)(ii)(B), (l)(ii)(C), (2)(1i)(B), or (2)(ii)(C), the ethylene
glycol concentration in either the cooling tower or the liquid effluent
4-49
-------
from steam-jet ejectors used to produce a vacuum in the polymerization
reactors, whichever is applicable, shall be determined:
(1) Using procedures that conform to the methods described in
ASTM 02908-74, "Standard Practice for Measuring Volatile Organic Matter
in Water by Aqueous-Injection Gas Chromatography" (incorporated by
reference -- see §60.17), except as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this
section:
(i) At least one sample per operating day shall be collected
using the grab sampling procedures of ASTM D3370-76, "Standard Practices
for Sampling Water" (incorporated by reference -- see §60.17). An
average ethylene glycol concentration by weight shall be calculated on a
daily basis over a rolling 14-day period of operating days, except as
provided in paragraphs (j)(l)(ii) and (iii) of this section. Each daily
average ethylene glycol concentration so calculated constitutes a
performance test. Exceedance of the standard during the reduced testing
program specified in paragraphs (j)(l)(ii) and (iii) of this section is
a violation of these standards.
(ii) For those determining compliance with §60.562-l(c)(l)(ii)(B)
or (2)(ii)(B), the owner or operator may elect to reduce the sampling
program to any 14 consecutive day period once every two calendar months,
if at least seventeen consecutive 14-day rolling average concentrations
immediately preceding the reduced sampling program are each less than
0.10 weight percent ethylene glycol. If the average concentration
obtained over the 14 day sampling during the reduced testing period
exceeds the upper 95 percent confidence interval calculated from the
most recent test results in which no one 14-day average exceeded 0.10
weight percent ethylene glycol, then the owner or operator shall
4-50
-------
reinstitute a daily sampling program. A reduced sampling program can be
reinstituted if the requirements specified in this paragraph are met.
(iii) For those determining compliance with §60.562-
l(c)(l)(ii)(C) or (2)(ii)(C), the owner or operator may elect to reduce
the sampling program to any 14 consecutive day period once every two
calendar months, if at lease seventeen consecutive 14-day rolling
average concentrations immediately preceding the reduced sampling
program are each less than 1.8 weight percent ethylene glycol. If the
average concentration obtained over the 14 day sampling during the
reduced test period exceeds the upper 95 percent confidence interval
calculated from the most recent test results 14-day in which no one 14-
day average exceeded 1.8 weight percent ethylene glycol, then the owner
or operator shall reinstitute a daily sampling program. A reduced
program can be reinstituted if the requirements specified in this
paragraph are met.
(iv) The upper 95 percent confidence interval shall be calculated
using the equation:
5*1 + 2 JnZx2 - (ŁX)2
CI95
n T n(n-l)
where: x, = daily ethylene glycol concentration for each day used to
calculate each 14-day rolling average used in test results
to justify implementing the reduced testing program.
n = number of ethylene glycol concentrations
(2) Measuring an alternative parameter, such as carbon oxygen
demand or biological oxygen demand, that is demonstrated to be directly
proportional to the ethylene glycol concentration. Such parameter shall
be measured during the initial 14-day performance test during which the
facility is shown to be in compliance with the ethylene glycol
4-51
-------
concentration standard whereby the ethylene glycol concentration is
determined using the procedures described in paragraph (j)(l) of this
section. The alternative parameter shall be measured on a daily basis
and the average value of the alternative parameter shall be calculated
on a daily basis over a rolling 14-day period of operating days. Each
daily average value of the alternative parameter constitutes a
performance test.
4-52
-------
§60.565 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall keep an up-to-date, readily-accessible record of the
following information measured during each performance test, and shall
include the following information in the report of the initial
performance test in addition to the written results of such performance
tests as required under §60.8. Where a control device is used to comply
with §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D) only, a report containing performance test
data need not be submitted, but a report containing the information in
§60.565(a)(ll) is required. Where a boiler or process heater with a
design heat input capacity of 150 million Btu/hour or greater is used to
comply with §60.562-l(a), a report containing performance test data need
not be submitted, but a report containing the information in
§60.565(a)(2)(i) is required. The same information specified in this
section shall be submitted in the reports of all subsequently required
performance tests where either the emission control efficiency of a
combustion device or the outlet concentration of TOC (minus methane and
ethane) is determined.
(1) When an incinerator is used to demonstrate compliance with
§60.562-1, except §60.562-l(a)(2):
(i) The average firebox temperature of the incinerator (or the
average temperature upstream and downstream of the catalyst bed),
measured at least every 15 minutes and averaged over the performance
test period, and
(ii) The percent reduction of TOC (minus methane and ethane)
achieved by the incinerator, the concentration of TOC (minus methane and
ethane) (ppmv, by compound) at the outlet of the control device on a dry
basis, or the emission rate in terms of kilograms TOC (minus methane and
4-53
-------
ethane) per megagram of product at the outlet of the control device,
whichever is appropriate. If supplemental combustion air is used, the
TOC concentration corrected to 3 percent oxygen shall be recorded and
reported.
(2) When a boiler or process heater is used to demonstrate
compliance with §60.562-1, except §60.562-l(a)(2) :
(i) A description of the location at which the vent stream is
introduced into the boiler or process heater, and
(ii) For boilers or process heaters with a design heat input
capacity of less than 150 million Btu/hr, all 3-hour periods of
operation during which the average combustion temperature was more than
28°C (50°F) below the average combustion temperature during the most
recent performance test at which compliance was determined.
(3) When a flare is used to demonstrate compliance with §60.562-
1, except §60.562-l(a)(2):
(i) All visible emission readings, heat content determination,
flow rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during the
performance test,
(ii) Continuous records of the pilot flame heat-sensing
monitoring, and
(iii) Records of all periods of operations during which the pilot
flame is absent.
(4) When an incinerator, boiler, or process heater is used to
demonstrate compliance with §60. 562-1 (a) (2), a description of the
location at which the vent stream is introduced into the incinerator,
boiler, or process heater.
(5) When a flare is used to demonstrate compliance with §60.562-
4-54
-------
(i) All visible emission readings made during the performance
test,
(ii) Continuous records of the pilot flame heat-sensing
monitoring, and
(iii) Records of all periods of operation during which the pilot
flame is absent.
(6) When an absorber is the final unit in a system to demonstrate
compliance with §60.562-1, except §60.562-l(a)(2), the specific gravity
(or alternative parameter that is a measure of the degree of absorbing
liquid saturation, if approved by the Administrator), and average
temperature, measured at least every 15 minutes and averaged over the
performance test period, of the absorbing liquid (both measured while
the vent stream is normally routed and constituted).
(7) When a condenser is the final unit in a system to demonstrate
compliance with §60.562-1, except §60.562-1(a)(2), the average exit
(product side) temperature, measured at least every 15 minutes and
averaged over the performance test period while the vent stream is
normally routed and constituted.
(8) Daily measurement and daily average 14-day rolling average of
the ethylene glycol concentration in the liquid effluent exiting the
vacuum system servicing the polymerization reaction section, if an owner
or operator is subject to §60.562-l(c)(l)(ii)(B) or (2)(11)(B), or of
the ethylene glycol concentration in the cooling water in the cooling
tower, if subject to §60.562-l(c)(2)(ii)(C) or (2)(111)(C).
(9) When a carbon adsorber is the final unit in a system to
demonstrate compliance with §60.562-1, except §60.562-l(a)(2): the
concentration level or reading indicated by the organics monitoring
device at the outlet of the adsorber, measured at least every 15 minutes
4-55
-------
and averaged over the performance test period while the vent stream is
normally routed and constituted.
(10) When an owner or operator seeks to comply with the
requirements of this subpart by complying with the uncontrolled
threshold emission rate cutoff provision in §§60.560(d) and (e) or with
the individual stream exemptions in §60.560(g), each process operation
variable (e.g., pressure, temperature, type of catalyst) that may result
in an increase in the uncontrolled emission rate, if §60.560(d) or (e)
is applicable, or in an increase in the uncontrolled annual emissions or
the VOC weight percent, as appropriate, if §60.560(g) is applicable,
should such operating variable be changed.
(11) When an owner or operator uses a control device to comply
with §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D) alone: all periods when the control device
is not operating.
(b)(l) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall submit with the initial performance test or, if complying
with §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D), as a separate report, an engineering report
describing in detail the vent system used to vent each affected vent
stream to a control device. This report shall include all valves and
vent pipes that could vent the stream to the atmosphere, thereby
bypassing the control device, and identify which valves are car-sealed
opened and which valves are car-sealed closed.
(2) If a vent system containing valves that could divert the
emission stream away from the control device is used, each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep for at
least two years up-to-date, readily accessible continuous records of:
(i) All periods when flow is indicated if flow indicators are
installed under §60.563(d)(l).
4-56
-------
(ii) All times when maintenance is performed on car-sealed
valves, when the car seal is broken, and when the valve position is
changed (i.e., from open to closed for valves in the vent piping to the
control device and from closed to open for valves that vent the stream
directly or indirectly to the atmosphere bypassing the control device).
(c) Where an incinerator is used to comply with §60.562-1, except
§§60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D) and (a)(2), each owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall keep for at least 2 years up-to-date,
readily accessible continuous records of:
(1) The temperature measurements specified under §60.563(b)(1),
(2) Records of periods of operation during which the parameter
boundaries established during the most recent performance test are
exceeded. Periods of operation during which the parameter boundaries
established during the most recent performance test are exceeded are
defined as follows:
(i) For noncatalytic incinerators, all 3-hour periods of
operation during which the average combustion temperature was more than
28°C (50°F) below the average combustion temperature during the most
recent performance test at which compliance was demonstrated.
(ii) For catalytic incinerators, all 3-hour periods of operation
during which the average temperature of the vent stream immediately
before the catalyst bed is more than 28°C (50°F) below the average
temperature of the vent stream during the most recent performance test
at which compliance was demonstrated. The owner or operator also shall
record all 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
temperature difference across the catalyst bed is less than 80 percent
of the average temperature difference of the device during the most
recent performance test at which compliance was demonstrated.
4-57
-------
(d) Where a boiler or process heater is used to comply with
§60.562-1, except §§60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D) and (a)(2), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep for at
least 2 years up-to-date, readily accessible continuous records of:
(1) Where a boiler or process heater with a heat input design
capacity of 150 million Btu/hr or greater is used, all periods of
operation of the boiler or process heater. (Examples of such records
could include records of steam use, fuel use, or monitoring data
collected pursuant to other State or Federal regulatory requirements),
and
(2) Where a boiler or process heater with a heat input design
capacity of less than 150 million Btu/hr is used, all periods of
operation during which the parameter boundaries established during the
most recent performance test are exceeded. Periods of operation during
which the parameter boundaries established during the most recent
performance test are exceeded are defined as all 3-hour periods
of operation during which the average combustion temperature was more
than 28°C (50°F) below the average combustion temperature during the
most recent performance test at which compliance was demonstrated.
(e) Where a flare is used to comply with §60.562-1, except
§60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D), each owner or operator subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall keep for at least 2 years up-to-date, readily
accessible continuous records of:
(1) The flare or pilot light flame heat sensing monitoring
specified under §60.563(b)(2), and
(2) All periods of operations in which the flare or pilot flame,
as appropriate, is absent.
4-58
-------
(f) Where an adsorber, condenser, absorber, or a control device
other than a flare, incinerator, boiler, or process heater is used to
comply with §60.562-1, except §60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep for at
least 2 years up-to-date, readily-accessible continuous records of the
periods of operation during which the parameter boundaries established
during the most recent performance test are exceeded. Where an owner or
operator seeks to comply with §60.562-1, periods of operation during
which the parameter boundaries established during the most recent
performance tests are exceeded are defined as follows:
(1) Where an absorber is the final unit in a system:
(i) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
absorbing liquid temperature was more than 11°C (20°F) above the average
absorbing liquid temperature during the most recent performance test,
and
(ii) All 3-hour periods of operation during which the average
absorbing liquid specific gravity was more than 0.1 unit above, or more
than 0.1 unit below, the average absorbing liquid specific gravity
during the most recent performance test (unless monitoring of an
alternative parameter that is a measure of the degree of absorbing
liquid saturation is approved by the Administrator, in which case he or
she will define appropriate parameter boundaries and periods of
operation during which they are exceeded).
(2) Where a condenser is the final unit in a system, all 3-hour
periods of operation during which the average condenser operating
temperature was more than 6°C (10°F) above the average operating
temperature during the most recent performance test.
4-59
-------
(3) Where a carbon adsorber is the final unit in a system, all 3-
hour periods of operation during which the average organic concentration
level in the carbon adsorber gases is more than 20 percent greater than
the exhaust gas concentration level or reading measured by the organics
monitoring system during the most recent performance test.
(g) Each owner or operator of an affected facility subject to the
provisions of this subpart and seeking to demonstrate compliance with
§60.562-1 shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of:
(1) Any changes in production capacity, feedstock type, or
catalyst type, or of any replacement, removal or addition of product
recovery equipment; and
(2) The results of any performance test performed pursuant to the
procedures specified by §60.564.
(h) Each owner or operator of an affected facility that seeks to
comply with the requirements of this subpart by complying with the
uncontrolled threshold emission rate cutoff provision in §§60.560(d) and
(e) or with the individual stream exemptions in §60.560(g) shall keep
for at least 2 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of any
change in process operation that increases the uncontrolled emission
rate of the process line in which the affected facility is located, if
§60.560(d) or (e) is applicable, or that increase the uncontrolled
annual emissions or the VOC weight percent of the individual stream, if
§60.560(g) is applicable.
(i) Each owner and operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart is exempt from §60.7(c) of the General Provisions.
(j) The Administrator will specify appropriate reporting and
recordkeeping requirements where the owner or operator of an affected
4-60
-------
facility complies with the standards specified under §60.562-1 other
than as provided under §60.565(a) through (e).
(k) Each owner or operator that seeks to comply with the
requirements of this subpart by complying with the uncontrolled
threshold emission rate cutoff provision of §§60.560(d) and (e), the
individual stream exemptions of §60.560(g), or the requirements of
§60.562-1 shall submit to the Administrator semiannual reports of the
following recorded information, as applicable. The initial report shall
be submitted within 6 months after the initial start-up date.
(1) Exceedances of monitored parameters recorded under
§§60.565(c), (d)(2), and (f).
(2) All periods recorded under §60.565(b) when the vent stream
has been diverted from the control device.
(3) All periods recorded under §60.565(d) when the boiler or
process heater was not operating.
(4) All periods recorded under §60,565(e) in which the flare or
pilot flame was absent.
(5) All periods recorded under §60.565(a)(8) when the 14-day
rolling average exceeded the standard specified in §60.562-l(c)(1)(ii)
(B), (l)(ii)(C), (2)(ii)(B), or (2)(ii)(C), as applicable.
(6) Any change in process operations that increases the uncon-
trolled emission rate of the process line in which the affected facility
is located, as recorded in §60.565(h).
(7) Any change in process operations that increases the
uncontrolled annual emissions or the VOC weight percent of the
individual stream, as recorded in §60.565(h).
(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall notify the Administrator of the specific provisions of
4-61
-------
§60.562, §60.560(d), or §60.560(e), as applicable, with which the owner
or operator has elected to comply. Notification shall be submitted with
the notification of initial startup required by §60.7(a)(3). If an
owner or operator elects at a later date to use an alternative provision
of §60.562 with which he or she will comply or becomes subject to
§60.562 for the first time (i.e., the owner or operator can no longer
meet the requirements of this subpart by complying with the uncontrolled
threshold emission rate cutoff provision in §60.560(d) or (e)), then the
owner or operator shall notify the Administrator 90 days before
implementing a change and, upon implementing a change, a performance
test shall be performed as specified in §60.564.
(m) The requirements of this subsection remain in force until and
unless EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under Section
lll(c) of the Act, approves alternative reporting requirements or means
of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event,
affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to
comply with this subsection, provided that they comply with the
requirements established by the State.
4-62
-------
§60.566 Delegation of Authority.
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under Section lll(c) of the Act, the authority contained in
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator and
not transferred to a State.
(b) Authority which will not be delegated to States:
§60.562-2(c)
3. Section 60.17(a) is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(6),
(a)(38), and (a)(40) and by adding paragraphs (a)(60) and (a)(61) to
read as follows:
§60.17 Incorporations by reference.
*****
(a) * * *
(6) ASTM D1946-77, Standard Method for Analysis of Reformed Gas
by Gas Chromatography, IBR approved for §§60.45(f)(5)(i), 60.18(f),
60.6l4(d)(2)(11), 60.614(d)(4), 60.664(d)(2)(ii), 60.664(d)(4) and
60.564(f).
(38) ASTM 02382-76, Heat of Combustion of Hydrocarbon Fuels by
Bomb Calorimeter [High-Precision Method], IBR approved for §§60.18(f),
60.485(g), 60.614(d)(4), 60.664(d)(4), and 60.564(f).
(40) ASTM D86-78, Distillation of Petroleum Products, IBR
approved for §60.593(d), §60.633(h), and §60.562-2(d).
*****
(60) ASTM 02908-74, Standard Practice for Measuring Volatile
Organic Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection Gas Chromatography, IBR
approved for §60.564(j).
(61) ASTM D3370-76, Standard Practices for Sampling Water, IBR
approved for §60.564(j).
4-63
-------
Section 5 Lists of Sources Affected
In this section sources that may be affected by the promulgated
regulations are listed. These sources were identified in the source
categories of polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene, and
poly(ethylene terephthalate). These lists should assist the EPA/State
air program personnel in informing the industry regarding the new
regulations. The lists must be used with caution as some sources may
have ceased operation, may have changed ownership, or may have changed
operations. At the same time, there may be some other sources that are
not on the list but may be subject to the standards. Further the
polystyrene and poly(ethylene terephthalate) source lists may contain
some sources that use batch production operations, which are not covered
by these.1 Latest information available should be used in the
determination of the sources being subject to standards. These lists
may be supplemented by using Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS) and
other databases available.
Plants producing expandable polystyrene are, however, covered by
these VOC standards for equipment leaks of VOC, but not for process VOC
emissions.
5-1
-------
I. Polypropylene Producers
Company
Amoco
Aristech
Eastman
Exxon
Fina
Genesis Polymers
Himont
Huntsman
Phillips
Rexene
Quantum (USI)
Shell
Shell-Carbide
Soltex
Location
Cedar Bayou, Texas
Chocolate Bayou, Texas
LaPorte, Texas
Neal, West Virginia
Longview, Texas
Baytown, Texas
LaPorte, Texas
Marysville, Michigan
Bayport, Texas
Lake Charles, Louisiana
West Deptford, New Jersey
Pasadena, Texas
Bayport, Texas
Odessa, Texas
Morris, Illinois
Norco, Louisiana
Seadrift, Texas
Deer Park, Texas
SOURCE: Chemical Profile: Polypropylene. Chemical Marketing
Reporter. October 1, 1988.
Epsilon, Inc. of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, is scheduled to start
up a new plant in 1990.
5-2
-------
II. High Density Polyethylene Producers
Company Location
Allied Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Chevron Orange, Texas
Dow Chemical Plaquemine, Louisiana
Freeport, Texas
Hoechst Celanese Bayport, Texas
Occidental Bay City, Texas
Orange, Texas
Victoria, Texas
Phillips Pasadena, Texas
Quantum (USI) Clinton, Iowa
Chocolate Bayou, Texas
Houston, Texas
Port Arthur, Texas
Soltex Polymer Deer Park, Texas
SOURCE: Chemical Profile: Polyethylene - HD. Chemical Marketing
Reporter. October 1, 1988.
Quantum's USI Division is building a HOPE plant in Deer Park,
Texas, to be completed by 1990.
Union Carbide is building a new HDPE/LDPE plant at Seadrift,
Texas, scheduled for completion by 1990.
5-3
-------
III. Low Density Polyethylene Producers
Company Location
Chevron Cedar Bayou, Texas
Orange, Texas
Dow Plaquemine, Louisiana
Freeport, Texas
DuPont Orange, Texas
Victoria, Texas
Eastman Longview, Texas
Exxon Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Mont Belvieu, Texas
Mobil Beaumont, Texas
Rexene Odessa, Texas
Bayport, Texas
Quantum (USI) Clinton, Iowa
Morris, Illinois
Houston, Texas
Port Arthur, Texas
Tuscola, Illinois
Union Carbide Seadrift, Texas
Taft, Louisiana
SOURCE: Chemical Profile: Polyethylene - LD. Chemical Marketing
Reporter. October 1, 1988.
Allied-Signal operates a polyethylene wax facility in Orange,
Texas.
Quantum is building a LLDPE/HDPE swing plant in Morris, Illinois,
scheduled to be completed by 1990.
5-4
-------
IV. Polystyrene Producers
Company
A&E Plastics
American Polymers
Amoco
Arco1
BASF
Chevron
Dart Polymers
Dow
Fina
Goodson
Huntsman
Kama
Mobil
Polysar (Nova
Plastics)
Location
City of Industry, California
Oxford, Massachusetts
Torrance, California
Joilet, Illinois
Willow Springs, Illinois
Monaca, Pennsylvania
Painesville, Ohio
South Brunswick, New Jersey1
Marietta, Ohio
Owensboro, Kentucky
Allyn's Point, Connecticut
Hanging Rock, Ohio
Joliet, Illinois
Midland, Michigan
Pevely, Missouri
Torrance, California
Calumet City, Illinois
Carville, Louisiana
Windsor, New Jersey
Troy, Ohio
Belpre, Ohio
Chesapeake, Virginia
Peru, Illinois1
Rome, Georgia
Hazel ton, Pennsylvania
Holyoke, Massachusetts
Joliet, Illinois
Santa Ana, California
Addyston, Ohio
Akron, Ohio2
Decatur, Alabama
Leominster, Massachusetts
Springfield, Massachusetts
West Haven, Connecticut
5-5
-------
IV. Polystyrene Producers (concluded)
Company Location
Texstyrene Fort Worth, Texas1
Vititek Delano, California
Capable of producing expandable polystyrene.
2 Plant is closed.
SOURCE: Chemical Profile: Polystyrene. Chemical Marketing Reporter,
October 1, 1988.
5-6
-------
V. Poly(ethylene terephthalate) Producers
Company
Allied Corp.
BASF Corp.
Benris Company, Inc.
E.I. duPont de
Nemours
Eastman Kodak
Firestone Tire and
Rubber Co.
Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Co.
Hoechst Celanese
ICI Americas
Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co.
Location
Moncure, North Carolina
Lowland, Tennessee
New London, Wisconsin
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Charleston, South Carolina
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Kinston, North Carolina
Old Hickory, Tennessee
Wilmington, North Carolina
Brevard, North Carolina
Circleville, Ohio
Florence, South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina
Kingsport, Tennessee
Rochester, New York
Windsor, Colorado
Hopewell, Virginia
Scottsboro, Alabama
Point Pleasant, West Virginia
Spartanburg, South Carolina
Greer, South Carolina
Florence, South Carolina
Salisbury, North Carolina
Shelby, North Carolina
Hopewell, Virginia
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Decatur, Alabama
Greenville, South Carolina
SOURCE: 1988 Directory of Chemical Producers - United States.
PET film (polyester film), PET, and PET - bottle grade
resins.
5-7
-------
Section 6 Implementation Plan for Polymer
Manufacturing Industry (40 CFR 60. Suboart
This plan identifies those activities and documents necessary to
enable the regional offices and delegated authorities to implement and
enforce the national source performance standards for the polymer
manufacturing industry to be promulgated in April 1990. This plan will
note the lead office, contact person, due date, and objective of each
activity and document identified.
The goal of each activity and document identified in this plan
should be the successful implementation of this new NSPS. In setting
the deadline for each item identified in this plan, SSCD tried to set
realistic dates, i.e., a balance between the need for timely guidance
and training and the recognition of the competing demands made upon the
person responsible for developing that guidance or training. Given that
these two forces are often in a state of flux, the deadlines in this
plan are subject to change. SSCD hopes to keep all parties informed of
changes in deadlines as soon as those changes are known. If you have
any questions regarding this plan, please contact Barbara Durso at FTS
245-3653.
I. Polymer Manufacturing Compliance Monitoring Strategy
LEAD: SSCD CONTACT: Barbara Durso
DUE DATE: 9/1/90 TELEPHONE: FTS 245-3653
OBJECTIVE: SSCD will explore the need for a compliance monitoring
strategy (CMS). Designed for use by the headquarters, regions, and
delegated authorities, a CMS describes the responsibilities of each
office in implementing the rule and provides guidance on targeting
inspections and using self-monitoring data (where available and
6-1
-------
applicable). Since this NSPS is automatically delegated in most cases
to State and local authorities, SSCD will explore the need to develop
such a plan. A decision whether or not to develop a compliance
monitoring strategy for the polymer manufacturing NSPS will be made by
9/1/90.
II. Summary of Rules
LEAD: ESD CONTACT: Sims Roy
DUE DATE: May 1990 TELEPHONE: FTS 629-5263
OBJECTIVE: Designed for use by the regions, headquarters, State and
local authorities, and owners/operators of affected facilities, this
document will provide "plain English" summaries of the rules. This
document will also consist of flowcharts or tables for determining
applicability, standards, compliance, and exemptions.
III. Inspection Manual and Training for Subpart ODD
LEAD: SSCD CONTACT: Omayra Salgado
DUE DATE: est. FY91 TELEPHONE: FTS 382-2837
OBJECTIVE: Designed for use by regional, State, and local inspectors
and in-house auditors, these documents will provide a step-by-step guide
to inspecting the facilities affected by Subpart ODD. SSCD is
considering the need to include development of an inspection manual and
training for Subpart ODD on the Technical Agenda for FY91.
IV. List of Sources Affected
LEAD: SSCD with ESD CONTACT: Barbara Durso
DUE DATE: May 1990 TELEPHONE: FTS 245-3653
OBJECTIVE: Designed for use by headquarters, regions, and delegated
authorities, this document will be an initial compilation of sources
known to be or believed to be affected by Subpart ODD. This list will
6-2
-------
be compiled from information in existing databases and from data
gathered in the process of rule development. The list will also provide
SICs for source categories affected by the new rules. The regional
offices will need to identify to SSCD those sources for which there is
not enough information to input the source in CDS. Based on the
regional feedback, SSCD will explore the possibility of having a
contractor put together a list with complete source names and addresses.
V. Compilation of Available Technical Support
LEAD: SSCD with ESD CONTACT: Barbara Durso
DUE DATE: 9/30/91 TELEPHONE: FTS 245-3653
OBJECTIVE: Designed for headquarters, regions, delegated authorities,
and owners/operators of affected facilities, this document will serve as
an annotated bibliography of existing reference books, guidance,
background information documents, and hotlines related to polymer
manufacturing control methodology, health risks, and related topics.
This document must be placed on the Technical Agenda and probably will
be put together with contractor assistance.
6-3
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF OAQPS CONTACTS
A-l
-------
LIST OF OAQPS CONTACTS
Technical
Evans, Les
Rosensteel, Robert
Roy, Sims
Telephone Number
919-541-5410
919-541-5608
919-541-5263
FIS
629-5410
629-5608
629-5263
Compliance Policy
Durso, Barbara
202-245-3653
245-3653
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
REPRINT OF FEDERAL REGUALTIONS
FROM FEDERAL REGISTER
B-l
-------
Tuesday,
December 11, 1990
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Polypropylene,
Polyethylene, Polystyrene, and
Polyethylene terephthalate)
Manufacturing Industry; Final Rule
-------
-------
51010 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1390 / Rules Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
IFBL-3752-2I
RIN 2060-AA37
Standards of Performance For New
Stationary Sources; Polypropylene,
Polyethylene, Polystyrene, and Poly
(ethylene terephthalate) Manufacturing
Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or the Agency).
ACTION; Final rule.
SUMMARY: Standards of performance to
limit volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from new, modified, and
reconstructed process sections at certain
polymer manufacturing plants were
proposed in the Federal Register on
September 30.1987 (52 FR 36678). A new
approach for determining which process
emissions from polypropylene and
polyethylene production would be
subject to the proposed standards was
presented for public comment in the
Federal Register on January 10.1989 (54
FR 890). This action promulgates these
standards of performance for
polypropylene, polyethylene.
polystyrene, and polyfethyiene
tarephlhalate) (PET) plants. These
standards implement section 111 of the
Clean Air Act and are baaed on the
Administrator's determination that
emissions from these polymer
manufacturing, facilities cause, or
contribute significantly to. air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. The
intended effect of these standards is to
require ail new. modified, and
reconstnicted process sections at these
polymer manufacturing plants to
achieve emission levels that reflect the
best demonstrated system of continuous
emission reduction considering costs,
non-air quality health, and
environmental and energy impacts.
EFFECTIVE DATES: December 11.1990.
These standards of performance become
effective upon promulgation but apply to
affected facilities for which
construction, modification, or
reconstruction commenced after either
September 30,1987. or January 10.1989,
as identified in the final rule.
Under section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act judicial review of the actions
taken by this notice is available only by
the filing of a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of this rule. Under
section 307(b}(2) of the Clean Air Act.
the requirements that are the subject of
today s notice may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements. Incorporation by
Reference: The incorporation by
reference of certain publications in these
standards is approved by the Directorcf
the Office of the Federal Register as of
December" 1990.
ADDRESSES: Background information
document. The background information
document BID) for the promulgated
standards may be obtained from the
U.S. EPA Library i MO-35), Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (9191 541-2777 Please
refer to "Polymer Manufacturing-
Industry—Backgrounil Information for
Promulgated Standards of Performance"
(RPA-4.50/3-89-019D). The BID contains
(1) A summary o»' all the public
comments mane on the proposed
standards and the Administrator's
responses to the comments. (2) a
summary of the changes made to the
standards since proposal, and (3) the
final Environmental Impact Statement
which summarizes the impacts of the
standards
Docket A docxet number A-62-19,
containing information considered by
EPA in the development of the
promulgated standards is available for
public msoection between 8:30 a.m. and
3-30 pm Mondav through Fnday at
EPA s Air Oocket ILE--1311 room M-
1500 1st Floor Waterside Mali 401M
Street SW Washington. DC 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Forfurther information and official
interpretations of applicability
compliance requirements, and reporting
aspects of the promulgated standards.
contact the appropriate Regional State,
or local office contact as listed in 40
CFR 60.4 For further information on the
background of the regulatory decisions
in the promulgated standards, contact
Mr Sims Roj Standards Development
Branch. Emission Standards Division
(MD-13 US Environmental Protection
Agency Research Triangle Park North-
Carolina 27711 telephone 919)541-
5283. For further information on the
technical aspects of the promulgated
standards, contact Mr Les Evans.
Chemicals and Petroleum Branch,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Research Triangle Park. North. Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-5410-For
further information on the testing and
monitoring requirements of the
promulgated standards, contact Mr. Bifl
Grimley, Emission Measurement Branch;
Technical Support Division (MD-14).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Researcn Triangle Park. i\orth Carolina
27711. telephone (919) 541-1005.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. The Standards
Standards of performance for new
sources established under section 111 of
the Clean Air Act reflect:
* * * application of the best technological
system of continuous emission reduction
which (taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, any non-
air quality_health and environmental impact
and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately
demonstrated (Section lll(a)(l j).
For convenience, this will be refsrred
to as "best demonstrated technology,"
or "BDT."
As prescribed by Section ill.
promulgation of these standards was
preceded by the Administrator's
determination (40 CFR 60.16. 44 FR
49220. dated August 21.1979) that
segments of the polymer manufacturing
industry contribute significantly to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare and for which standards are to
be promulgated. Segments of the
polymer manufacturing industry
identified include polypropylene.
polyethylene, polystyrene, and polyester
resins.
The promulgated standards limit VOC
emissions from certain process sources
in new. modified, and reconstructed
affected facilities within polymer
manufacturing plants that produce the
following basic polymers:
polypropylene, polyethylene.
polystyrene, and PET. In addition, the
promulgated standards apply to certain
sources in polymer manufacturing plants
that produce copolymers consisting of at
least 50 percent weight of ethylene,
propylene. or bis-(2-hydroxyle!hy!)-
terephthalate. or at least 80 percent by
weight of styrene. The promulgated
standards also cover VOC emissions
from equipment leaks in all of these*
planta except those producing PET or
PETcopolymers. The promulgated
standards do not cover manufacturers of
elastomers or synthetic rubber.
As in the proposed standards, the
limits in the final rule are expressed in
terms of total organic compounds (TOC)
minus methane and ethane rather than
in terms of VOC. As explained in the
September 30.1987. Federal Register
notice, (52 FR 36698). the best systems of
continuous emission reduction
applicable to polymer manufacturing
operations do not selectively control
VOC. but rather these control
-------
f edera. Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations 51011
technologies control all organic
compounds. Moreover, the numerical
values of the emission limitss were
based on total organic data (excluding
methane and ethane). Therefore, to
reflect accurately the performance of
technologies selected as the best
systems of continuous emission
reduction and to make the emission
limits consistent with the data and test
methods from which the limits were
derived, the standards are expressed in
terms of TOG (minus methane and
ethane). For the same reason, the test
procedures prescribe measurement of
TOC (minus methane and ethane). In
short.- the standards rely on controlling
TOC (minus methane and ethane) arthe
best demonstrated surrogate for
controlling VOCs. which react to form
ozone in the atmosphere.
The affected facility for process
sources of VOC emissions is the
"process section" and for equipment
leaks of VOC emissions, the "process
unit" These are the same affected
facility designations as were proposed.
although the definitions of the various
process sections have been revised for
purposes of clarification.
Process Emissions
Background. On September 30.1887,
standards to control VOC emissions
from certain polymer manufacturing
facilities were proposed (52 FR 36678).
The standards proposed were based on
an analysis of the environmental.
energy, and economic impacts of various
levels of emission reduction achieved
through the application of various
control technologies to reduce
emissions. The technologies analyzed
«for controlling process emissions were
selected based on the particular
characteristics of the emission streams
being controlled. For example, waste
gas streams from polypropylene and
polyethylene production processes are
characterized by the presence of low
boiling components, poiymerizable
materials, and a mixture of VOCs.
These characteristics tend to make
recovery techniques, such as
condensers, impractical. Controlling
these streams is more likely to involve
combustion techniques. Therefore.
combustion technologies, such as flares
and incinerators, were analyzed for
reducing VOC emissions from these
polymer production processes.
To analyze the impacts of applying
the various levels of emission
reductions, process sections and model
plants were developed as representative
of production steps and processes found
in the polymer industry. A total of five
generic process sections and twelve
model plants were developed for ths
four major polymers, hi general.
increasing levels of control of process
emissions were obtained by controlling
additional emission streams from
process sections or. in the case of
condensers, increasing the efficiency of
the control device. For each level of
control, the Agency calculated VOC
emission reduction impacts, annual and
capital costs, secondary air quality.
energy, and economic impacts, and cost-
effectiveness values. Based on these
factors, the Agency identified which
process emissions from process section
in each model plant would be required*
to be controlled and the level of control
reflecting BOT. Such process emissions
and process section were then proposed
for control in the September 30,1987,
Federal Register notice.
The public comment period on the
September 30.1987. Federal Register
notice closed February 8.1988. Fourteen
comment letters were received, all from
industry sources. A wide range of
comments were received. Numerous
comments focused on the use of model
plants as the basis for determining
which process emissions from the
polypropylene and polyethylene
segments of the industry would be
subject to the proposed standards. Most
of these comments expressed concern
over the inflexibility of standards.
determined thorugh the analysis of
model plants, for dealing with process
changes in these two segments of the
industry. According to the commenters,
such process changes significantly affect
the emission stream characteristics. As
a result, controls that were identified as
DDT for model plants would, in some
cases, be unreasonable for processes
that did not correspond to the models.
Similarly, other processes or streams for
which control is reasonable may not be
affected by the standards. As a result of
information received in these comments,
the Agency examined alternative
approaches that would ensure that
emission streams, for which reasonable
controls are available, are required to be
controlled. This need existed primarily
for polypropylene and polyethylene
production processes. The Agency did
not propose to extend this new
approach to polystyrene or PET
production processes. Polystyrene and
PET processes are more mature and
significant changes are not expected. As
such, the model plant approach is a less
complex, more direct regulatory
approach. A generic approach would be
more complicated and potentially less
effective for these processes due to the
use of recovery-type controls and the
difficulty in applying these to combined
streams.
On January 10,1989. the Agency
reopened the public comment period for
the limited purpose of allowing public
comment on a new approach for
determining which process emissions
from polypropylene and polyethylene
production processes would be subject
to the proposed standards (54 FR 890).
The new approach was developed
considering the same types of control
techniques as for the model plant
approach. Under the new approach.
generic emission stream characteristics
would be used to make the control
determination rather than rely on a
fixed set of emission stream
characteristics based on model plants.
For continuous process emissions, the
control determination would be based
on either the VOC concentration or
annual emissions or both. For
intermittent emissions, it would be
based on the type of release aions.
Comments received on the January 19.
1989. Federal Register notice were
generally favorable, although several
significant concerns were raised. These:
concerns were on identifying which
intermittent releases would be exempt
from control; the VOC weight percent
exemption suggested for individual
emission streams from modified and
reconstructed affected facilities, but not
for emission streams from new affected
facilities; and the definition of
"concurrent" by which emission streams
from affected facilities constructed.
modified, or reconstructed would be
combined in making the control
determination. These and other
comments resulted in changes to the
proposed standards and are discussed
below.
Polypropylene and polyethylene. The
promulgated process emission standards
for polypropylene and polyethylene
plants apply to all new. modified, and
reconstructed process sections involved
in the manufacture of polypropylene,
polyethylene, or a polypropylene or
polyethylene copolymer. Because of the
new approach for determining which
process emissions are to be controlled,
some polypropylene and polyethylene
affected facilities have a September 30,
1987, applicability date and others have
a January 10.1989. applicability date.
The promulgated standards implement
the new approach presented in the
January 10.1989, Federal Register notice,
with several important changes. The
basic procedure for determining which
continuous process emissions are to be
controlled requires combining emission
streams within one of three VOC weight
percent ranges, calculating the
combined stream's weight percent VOC
and total annual emissions, calculating a
-------
F1012 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11, 1990 / Rules Regulations
threshold emission level based on the
combined stream's VOC concentration.
and comparing the combined stream's
total annual emissions with the
calculated threshold emission (GTE)
level. If the combined stream's total
annual emissions are equal to or greater
than the CTE level, then ail of the
individual emission streams that made
up the combined stream are to be
controlled by 98 percent reduction or to
20 ppm by volume (ppmv). whichever is
less stringent. If the combined stream's
total annual emissions are less than the
CTE level, then only those individual
streams with individual flows of 8 scfm
or less and with annual emissions of at
least 1.6 Mg/yr are required to be
controlled at that time. Control of these
streams, however, does not need to be
by 98 percent reduction or to 20 ppmv.
These streams may be controlled in any
existing control device. Individual
streams with annual emissions less than
1.6 Mg/yr or with VOC concentrations
of less than 0.1 weight percent VOC are
exempt from control and are not used in
any of the above procedures.
The above procedures are essentially
the same as that presented in the
January 10,1989, Federal Register notice
with the following exceptions:
1. The individual weight percent VOC
cutoff has been extended to new affected
facilities. It was proposed that only emission
streams from existing sources that are
modified or reconstructed could use this
exemption:
2. The specific term "concurrent" has been
eliminated in the final rule. However, the
final rule requires all emission streams to be
subject to potential control if sufficient
emissions become available to require
control under the new approach regardless of
when one affected facility is constructed.
modified, or reconstructed relative to
another.
3. Emission streams that become subject to
BDT under this standard and that are already
controlled by • control device that is required
as a result of a Federally enforceable rule do
not need to be controlled by 98 percent or to
20 ppmv until the existing control device is
modified or reconstructed or replaced.
For intermittent emissions from
polypropylene and polyethylene
sources, the promulgated rule requires
control of all intermittent emissions
except emergency releases. For
purposes of this rule, emergency
releases involve, in part those
intermittent releases that are necessary
to prevent catastrophic equipment
damage or personnel safety hazards,
including those necessary to minimize
the adverse effects of a runaway
reaction such as may occur in a low
pressure process, and those releases
that occur as a result of decompositions
and of attempts to prevent
decompositions, such as occur in high
pressure processes. Intermittent releases
that occur as part of specific system
features designed to maintain normal
operating conditions in the process
vessel are to be controlled. The
promulgated rule for intermittent
emissions follows more closely the
proposed rule in the September 30.1987,
Federal Register notice than that rule
presented in the January 10.1989,
Federal Register notice.
The promulgated standards for
polypropylene and polyethylene sources
allow affected facilities that are
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
between September 30.1987, and
January 10.1989. to be exempt from
control if their uncontrolled emission
rates are below those uncontrolled
threshold emission rates presented in
the September 30.1987. Federal Register
notice. Emissions from such affected
facilities, however, become subject to
the standards if the process section's
uncontrolled emission rate becomes
greater than the uncontrolled threshold
emission rate at a later date or if the
process section is modified or
reconstructed after January 10.1989.
If the uncontrolled emission rate of an
existing facility with a control device is
greater than the uncontrolled threshold
emission rate and control by 98 percent
or to 20 ppmv has been determined to be
required under the new approach, the
promulgated rule allows* such stream to
continue to be controlled in its present
control device. At such time that the
existing control device is modified.
reconstructed, or replaced, the vent
stream is then required to be controlled
by 98 percent or to 20 ppmv.
The promulgated standards for
polypropylene and polyethylene contain
fairly complex procedures for
determining which process emissions
are subject to the standards. This is the
result of adopting a generic approach.
Commenters requested that the Agency
clarify this procedure and the standards
that are to be met To meet this request
the Agency developed a scries of five
flow diagrams, which are presented as
Figures 1 through 3. The purpose of
these figures is to provide only an
overview of the determination
procedure for polypropylene and
polyethylene process emissions, and do
not contain specific details found in the
final rule. The following paragraphs
summarize the purpose of each figure.
Figure 1 Initiates the determination
procedure for each process section.
Through this figure, affected facilities
are identified and separated according
to their applicability date (between
September 30.1987, and on or before
January 10.1989, and after January 10,
1989). This figure also includes the
exemption step provided to affected
facilities with an applicability date
between September 30,1987. and
January 10,1989. and identifies how
these emissions can become subject to
the rule at a later date (see Block 1.6).
For process sections that are identified
as affected facilities subject to the
standard. Figure 1 directs the user to
Figure 2A for continuous emissions and
to Figure 3 for intermittent emissions.
Figure 2A is the first of three flow
diagrams applicable to continuous
emissions. The first step in Figure 2A
separates those continuous emissions
that are uncontrolled from those that are
controlled in an existing control device.
This is necessary as the determination
procedure is different depending on
whether the emissions are already being
controlled. If they are, the flow diagram
directs the user to Figure 2C. For
uncontrolled continuous emissions.
Figure 2A continues by showing the
exemptions provided for individual
emission streams (see Block 2A.5). (Note
that an individual stream that is
exempted based on its annual emissions
or its VOC weight percent becomes
subject to the standards at a later date if
its annual emissions become 1.6 Mg/yr
or greater (if it had been exempted on
the basis of the annual emissions
exemption) or its VOC concentration
becomes 0.10 weight percent or greater
(if it had been exempted on the basis of
the VOC concentration exemption) (see
Block 2A.6).) Once qualifying individual
emission streams are exempted, the user
is directed to Figure 2B.
MtUHQ COOt eSSO-» M
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11,1990 / Rules and Regulations
51013
BEGIN HERE EACH TIME A PROCESS
SECTION IS CONSTRUCTED, MODIFIED.
OR RECONSTRUCTED.
WAS PROCESS SECTION CONSTRUCTED,
I MODIFIED, OR RECONSTRUCTED
| AFTER SEPTEMBER 30, 1987?
NO
YES
1.1
PROCESS SECTION
NOT AN AFFECTED
FACILITY
1.2
WAS PROCESS SECTION CONSTRUCTED,
MODIFIED, OR RECONSTRUCTED
AFTER JANUARY 10, 1989?
NO
1
1.3
YES
IS PROCESS SECTION (AND
ITS EMISSIONS) IDENTIFIED
IN TABLE 1 OF THE RULE AS
AN AFFECTED FACILITY?
YES
YES
NO
1.4
ARE UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS
GREATER THAN THE UNCONTROLLED
THRESHOLD EMISSION RATE
IN TABLE 2 OF THE RULE?
_l
GO TO FIGURE 2A, BLOCK 2A.1. FOR
CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS AND TO
FIGURE 3, BLOCK 3.1 FOR
INTERMITTENT EMISSIONS
1.7
NO
1.5
NO CONTROL IS REQUIRED AT
THIS TIME. IF AT A LATER
DATE, EMISSIONS EXCEED THE
THRESHOLD RATE OR IF MODIFIED
OR RECONSTRUCTED AFTER
JANUARY 10, 1989, THEN PROCEED
TO FIGURE 2A, BLOCK 2A.1.
1.6
Figure 1. Initial Decis1onmak1ng for Determining Which
Polypropylene and Polyethylene Process Sections Are
Affected Facilities Subject to the Standards
12
-------
51014 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
FROM FIGURE 1
2A.1
ARE EMISSIONS CONTROLLED
IN AN EXISTING CONTROL
DEVICE?
YES
GO TO
FIGURE 2C.
NO
2A.2
MEASURE/CALCULATE WEIGHT
PERCENT AND ANNUAL EMISSIONS
OF EACH STREAM.
2A.4
CONSIDER EACH STREAM:
IS VOC WEIGHT PERCENT
LESS THAN 0.1 OR ARE
ACTUAL EMISSIONS LESS
THAN 1.6 MG/YR?
YES
2A.5
NO
NO CONTROL IS REQUIRED
AT THIS TIME FOR THESE
INDIVIDUAL STREAMS.
IF AT A LATER DATE,
EMISSIONS BECOME OR
EXCEED 1.6 MG/YR OR
CONCENTRATION BECOMES
OR EXCEEDS 0.10 WEIGHT
PERCENT VOC, THEN
PROCEED TO FIGURE 2B,
BLOCK 28.1.
2A.6
GO TO FIGURE 28.
2A.7
Figure 2A. Continuous Emissions - Separation of Controlled from
Uncontrolled Emissions and Individual Stream Exemptions
13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 51015
FROM FIGURE 2A,
BLOCK 2A.7
ZB.l
COMBINE INDIVIDUAL STREAMS ACCORDING TO WEIGHT !
PERCENT RANGE (0.1 < 5.5. 5.5 < 20. 20 TO 100) |
'JSUSI.II!?11* Bimiag UHPIM Off* TW IMIVIOUM. STIEM
BOTTIOK 01 fttm HOXSS SECTION EXOVHD UMI THE
uwonnua TWCMU onssioi un
ADO IN ANY UNCONTROLLED EMISSION STREAMS
IN THE SAME WEIGHT PERCENT RANGE
FROM PREVIOUS AFFECTED FACILITIES.
23.2
28.
CALCULATE TOTAL ANNUAL
EMISSIONS FOR EACH
WEIGHT PERCENT RANGE
ACCORDING TO THE
PROCEDURES IN TABLE 3.
NO
CONTROL 98S. TO 20 PPMV, IN A
CONTROL DEVICE THAT MEETS SPECIFIED
OPERATING CONDITIONS. OR IN
AN EXISTING CONTROL DEVICE
28.7
2B.4
20 TO 100 WEIGHT !
PERCENT I
ARE EMISSIONS EQUAL TO OR
GREATER THAN THE CALCULATED
THRESHOLD EMISSIONS?
28.5
5.5 TO 20 WEIGHT
PERCENT
O.I TO 5.S WEIGHT
PERCENT
YES
ARE EMISSIONS EQUAL TO OR
GREATER THAN THE CALCULATED
THRESHOLD EMISSIONS?
NO
28.6
SPLIT STREAMS INTO
>8 SCFM AND THOSE
<8 SCFM.
CONTROL 98%. TO 20 PPMV. iP.
IN A CONTROL DEVICE THAT MEETS
SPECIFIED OPERATING CONDITIONS
2B.9
28.10
28.11
NO CONTROL AT THIS TIME. RETURN TO DECISIONMAKING
PROCESS NEXT TIME A PROCESS SECTION BECOMES AN
AFFECTED FACILITY OR A CONTROL DEVICE IS MODIFIED,
RECONSTRUCTED,.OR REPLACED (SEE FIGURE 2C, BLOCK 2C.3).
28.12
Figure 28. Declsionmaking Process for Uncontrolled Continuous
Emissions from Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
14
-------
51016 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
FROM FIGURE 2A.
BLOCK 2A.3
2C.1
ARE EMISSIONS EQUAL TO CR
GREATER THAN THE
CALCULATED THRESHOLD EMISSIONS?
STANDARD DOES
NOT NEED TO BE
MET AT THIS TIME.
NO
" YES
2C.6
2C.2
CONTROL DEVICE IS MODIFIED
RECONSTRUCTED. OR REPLACED.
DOES EXISTING CONTROL
DEVICE REDUCE EMISSIONS
BY 98 PERCENT OR TO
20 PPMV OR MEET NECESSARY
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS?
2C.7
ADO IN UNCONTROLLED STREAMS
IN SANE WEIGHT PERCENT
RANGE FROM PREVIOUS
AFFECTED FACILITIES.
2C.8
ARE EMISSIONS NOW
EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN
THE CALCUALTED THRESHOLD
EMISSIONS?
NO
2c.:
YES
STANDARD IS TO BE MET NEXT
TIME THE CONTROL DEVICE IS
MODIFIED. RECONSTRUCTED. CR
REPLACED. ADO IN ANY UNCON-
TROLLED EMISSIONS IN SAME
WEIGHT PERCENT RANGE FROM
ANY AFFECTED FACILITY.
NO FURTHER
CONTROL IS
REQUIRED.
2C.5
2C.4
NO,,
2C.9
YES
CONTROL BY 98 PERCENT. TO 20 PPMV,
OR IN A CONTROL DEVICE THAT MEETS
SPECIFIED OPERATING CONDITIONS.
2C.10
NOTE: THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUAL STREAM EXEMPTIONS FOR EMISSIONS ALREADY
CONTROLLED BY EXISTIN6 CONTROL DEVICES
Figure 2C. Decisionraaking Process for Continuous Emissions Already
Controlled at Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11.1990 / Rules and Regulations 51017
FROM FIGURE 1
EXEMPT ANY EMERGENCY STREAMS
3.Z
ARE EMISSIONS CONTROLLED IN
AN EXISTING CONTROL DEVICE?
YES
3.3
DOES CONTROL DEVICE
MEET STANDARDS?
NO
3.5
STANDARDS TO BE MET NEXT
TIME THE CONTROL DEVICE IS
MODIFIED, RECONSTRUCTED,
OR REPLACED.
3.7
NO
YES
STANDARDS ARE
TO BE MET.
2.4
NO FURTHER
CONTROL IS
REQUIRED.
3.6
Figure 3. Decisionmaking Process for Intermittent Emissions vr
Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
UOM COM UW-M-C
16
-------
J1013 Federal Register /' Vol. 55. No. 233 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
Figure 213 outlines the procedures for
combining nonexempt uncontrolled
continuous emissions and determining
which emissions arc to be controlled.
This figure corresponds to the steps
detailed in Table 3 ;n the final rule. An
important feature of the rule is the
"loop" provided between Blocks 20.12
and 2B.3. In the final rule, uncontrolled
emissions that remain uncontrolled after
passing through this determination
procedure are still subject to control in
the future as new process sections
become affected facilities.
Figure 2C outlines the procedure for
handling emissions that are already
being controlled. Note that for these
emissions there are no individual stream
exemptions as for uncontrolled
emissions. The stream characteristics of
the inlet stream to the control device are
used first to calculate the CTE level and
second to compare with the CTE level
(Block 2C.2). Also note that uncontrolled
emissions are combined with the
controlled emissions in one of two ways.
First if the controlled stream is to meet
the standards the next time the control
device is modified, reconstructed, or
replaced (Block 2C.4). any uncontrolled
emissions in the same weight percent
range as the controlled stream are also
to be controlled to meet the standards.
Second, if the controlled stream's
emissions are less than the CTE level.
any uncontrolled emissions in the same
weight percent range are combined with
the controlled stream (Block 2C.8) if and
when the control device is modified.
reconstructed, or replaced (Block 2C.7).
Lastly. Figure 3 outlines the
determination procedure for intermittent
emissions. This procedure is much
simpler than for continuous emissions as
it is based on stream type rather than
stream characteristics. This figure
shows the exemption for emergency
vent streams and the timing for when
the standards are to be met. which
depends on whether the intermittent
streams are uncontrolled or controlled
in an existing control device.
Polystyrene. The promulgated process
emission standards for polystyrene
plants apply to certain new. modified.
and reconstructed facilities producing
general purpose (crystal) or impact
polystyrene or polystyrene copolymers.
The standards apply only to certain
facilities in those plants producing
general purpose or impact polystyrene
using a continuous process. These
standards do not affect process
emissions from facilities that produce
general purpose (crystal) or impact
polystyrene or polystyrene copolymers
using a batch production process or for
facilities that produce expandable
polystyrene using either an in-situ
suspension process or a post-
impregnation suspension process.
For plants producing general purpose
or impact polystyrene using a
continuous process, the affected facility
is each material recovery section. The
promulgated process emission standards
limit the emissions of total organic
compounds (minus methane and ethane)
(TOC) from each new modified, or
reconstructed material recovery section
to 0.0036 kilograms (kg) of TOC per
megagram (Mg) of product (0.0036 Ibs
TOC/1.000 Ibs product) or the outlet gas
temperature from each final condenser
in the material recovery section to —25
°C (—13 *F). An owner or operator may
also elect to comply with these
standards by reducing emissions by 98
weight percent or to 20 ppmv If an
owner or operator elects to comply with
the outlet temperature standard, the
promulgated rule requires a temperature
monitor equipped with a continuous
recorder to calculate the average exit
temperature measured at least every 15
minutes and average over the
performance test penod. Each 3-hour
period constitutes a performance test.
Polyethylene terephthalate) The
promulgated process emission standards
for PET plants apply to certain new.
modified, or reconstructed facilities
producing PET or PET copolymers using
either the dimethyl terephthalate (DMT)
process or the terephthalic acid (TPA)
process. The standards apply only to
certain facilities in those plants using a
continuous production process. The
promulgated standards do not apply to
process emissions from facilities that
use a batch production process.
For plants producing PET using the
DMT process, the affected facilities are
each material recovery section and each
polymerization reaction section. These
standards limit TOC to the atmosphere
from each new modified, or
reconstructed material recovery section
(i.e.. methanol recovery) to 0.018 kg of
TOC per Mg of product (0.018 Ibs TOC/
1,000 Ibs product) or the outlet gas
temperature from each final condenser
in the material recovery section (i.e..
methanol recovery) to +3 'C (+37 *F).
The promulgated process emission
standards limit TOC to the atmosphere
from each new modified, or
reconstructed polymerization reaction
section to 0.02 kg TOC per Mg of
product (0.02 Iba TOC/1.000 Ibs
product). This limit includes emissions
from any equipment used to recover
further the ethylene glycol for reuse in
the process or sale offsite. but does not
include organic compound emissions
released to the atmosphere from the
cooling tower used to prov.de the
cooling water to the vacuum system
servicing the polymerization reaction
section. If steam-jet electors ure used to
provide the vacuum in the
polymerization reaction section, the
standards also limit the ethylene slycul
concentration in either the liauicl
effluent exiting the vacuum system
sen-icing the polymerization reaction
section or in the cooling water in the
cooling tower used to provide Ihe
cooling water tc the vacuum system
servicing the polymerization reaction. If
either a low viscosity PET product is
being produced using one or more end
finishers per process line or a high
viscosity PET product is being produced
using a single end finisher per process
line, the ethyiene glycol concentration in
the liquid effluent exiting the vacuum
system is limited to 0.35 percent bv
weight based on a 14-day rolling
average on a daily basis. If a high
viscosity product is being produced
using multiple end finishers, the
ethylene glycol concentration in the
cooling water in the cooling tower is
limited to 6.0 percent by weight based
on a 14-day roiling average on a daily
basis.
For plants producing PET using the
TPA process, the affected facilities are
each raw materials preparation section
and each polymerization reaction
section. The standards limit TOC from
each new, modified, or reconstructed
raw materials preparation section (i.e..
the estenfiers) to 0.04 kg of TOC per Mg
of product (0.04 Ibs TOC/1.000 Ibs
product). The promulgated process
emission standards for each new.
modified, or reconstructed
polymerization reaction section in which
the terephthalic acid process is being
used are the same as for the
polymerization reaction section in PET
plants using the dimethyl terephthalate
process.
For determining compliance with the
ethylene glycol concentration standards.
ASTM-D2908-74. "Standard Practice for
Measuring Volatile Organic Matter in
Water by Aqueous-Injection
Chromatography." is used. At lease one
sample per operating day is to be
collected with an average ethylene
glycol concentration by weight
calculated on a daily basis over a rolling
14-day period of operating days. Each
daily average ethylene glycol
concentration so calculated constitutes
a performance test. The promulgated
standards allow an owner or operator to
institute a reduced testing program if the
concentration of the ethylene glycol
meets certain criteria.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. N?o. 253 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Reaulations
51019
As an alternative to demonstrating
compliance with the 98 percent emission
reduction requirements contained in any
of the standards outlined above,
affected facilities may demonstrate
compliance with a TOG emission limit
of 20 ppmv. Flares may be used to
comply with the promulgated standards.
provided the flares are operated under
conditions, as specified in 5 60.18 of the
General Provisions, that have been
shown to result in a 98 percent reduction
in TOG.
Fugitive Emissions
The promulgated standards of
performance cover certain equipment
leaks of VOC emissions within
polypropylene, polyethylene,
polystyrene (including expandable
polystyrene), polypropylene copolymer,
polyethylene copolymer, and
polystyrene copolymer manufacturing
plants. The equipment leak standards do
not cover equipment in PET or PET
copolymer manufacturing plants.
The promulgated standards require
owners and operators of affected
facilities in the plants identified above
to comply with 40 CFR part 60—subpart
VV—"Standards of Performance for
Equipment leaks of VOC in the
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry" (SOCMI) and
apply to pumps, valves, sampling
connections, pressure relief devices.
open-ended valves, and compressors in
VOC service within each new, modified.
and reconstructed process unit "In VOC
service" means that a fugitive emission
source contains or contacts a fluid
containing 10 or more percent by weight
VOC
The SOCMI standards that are made
applicable to the affected facilities in
the plants specified above require: (1) A
leak detection and repair program for
valves in gas or light liquid service and
for pumps in light liquid service; (2)
certain equipment for compressors,
sampling connection systems, and open-
ended valves; and (3) no detectable
emissions from pressure relief devices in
gas service during normal operation. "In
gas service" means that a fugitive
emission source contains VOC fluids in
the gaseous or vapor state. "In light
liquid service" means that a fugitive
emission source contains a liquid in
which the vapor pressure of one or more
of the components is greater than 0.3
kPa at 20 degrees Centigrade, as
obtained from standard reference texts
or as determined by ASTM Method D-
2879, and the total concentration of the
pure components having a vapor
pressure greater than 0.3 kPa at 20
degrees Centigrade is equal to or greater
than 20 percent by weight.
The SOCMI standards allow the use
of "leakless" equipment for valves.
pumps, compressors and sampling
connection systems as an alternative to
the required equipment and work
practices. In addition, the SOCMI
standards for valves provide for the use
of alternative leak detection and repair
programs. The SOCMI standards also
contain a procedure for determining the
equivalency of alternative leak
detection and repair programs.
One change to the proposed
application of subpart VV to polymer
manufacturing plants has occurred since
proposal. In § 60.482-2(b). there are two
definitions of when a leak is detected:
(1) "If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured" and (2) "If
there are indications of liquids dripping
from the pump seal." Certain polymer
pumps are designed to purge polymer
fluid from bleed ports, thereby allowing
small quantities of VOC emissions to
escape to the atmosphere. These pumps
must use the polymer fluid to provide
lubrication and/or cooling of the pump •
shaft. While the Agency believes that
"indications of liquids dripping from the
pump seal" should not be applied to
such pumps, the 10.000 ppm or greater
definition should be retained to ensure
these pumps are not emitting significant
quantities of VOC. Further, the Agency
does not believe that this exemption
should be applied to "new" or replaced
pumps, because there are pumps
available that do not have this designed-
in purge. Therefore, the final rule
exempts purging from bleed ports in
existing pumps that must have such
ports from the "indications of liquid
dripping" definition until the pump is
replaced or reconstructed.
Monitoring
Where an incinerator, a boiler or
heater with a heat input design capacity
of less than 150 million Btu/hr, or a
condenser is used to comply with these
standards, a temperature monitor is
required. Where a flare is used to
comply with these standards, a
thermocouple, an ultraviolet sensor, an
infrared beam sensor, or similar
monitoring device is required to indicate
the continuous presence of either the
Hare flame or each pilot light flame.
depending on the types of emission
streams being controlled. Where an
adsorber is used, a scrubbing liquid
temperature monitor and a specific
gravity monitor are required. For
absorbers, condensers, and adsorbers.
an organic monitoring device that
indicates the concentration level of
organic compounds may be used
instead.
The promulgated standards also
require owners or operators using a vent
system that contains yaives that could
divert a vent stream from a control
device either to: (1) Install a flow
indicator, equipped with a recorder.
immediately downstream of each valve
that if opened would divert the vent
stream to the atmosphere or (2)
implement monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements concerning
the position of such valves and their car
seals.
Exemption and Threshold Levels
These standards contain various types
of cutoffs. Some of these cutoffs exempt
individual process emission streams and
groups of process emission streams from
control Other cutoffs identify threshold
emission levels, which are used for
determining when process emissions
from certain affected facilities are to be
controlled. The factors considered in
selecting these various cutoff levels are
specific to the Polymer Manufacturing
NSPS. and would not necessarily ba
appropriate for other source categories.
Likewise, the vanous cutoff levels
selected should not be viewed as
benchmarks for other standards. Cutoffs
found to be necessary for other source
categories will be based on factors
relevant to those categories, and may or
may not resemble those for the polymer
manufacturing processes covered under
these standards.
II. Environmental Impacts
The promulgated standards are based
on the application of BDT to control
VOC emissions from certain polymer
manufacturing facilities. To estimate the
impacts of the promulgated standards.
EPA projected that 85 newly
constructed, modified, and
reconstructed polymer manufacturing
process lines, which is approximately
equal to 27 plants, would be affected by
the standards during the first 5 years
after the effective date of the standards.
The EPA estimates that VCC emissions
would be reduced in the fifth year
following implementation of the
promulgated standards by 2.9 to 3.2
gigagrams (G,) (3,200 to 3.500 tons), an
emission reduction of approximately 42
percent from projected emission levels
under the regulatory baseline. This
range results from assumptions as to
how new growth in the industry will
occur. These estimates are essentially
the same as estimated at proposal.
Solid waste impacts are projected to
be minimal. The promulgated standards
are projected to result in the first five
years in less than 0.1 cubic meter (m3)
(1.2 cubic feet) per year of solid waste.
which would be generated through the
use of catalytic incinerators at high
density polyethylene (HDPE), slurry
-------
51020 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 233 / Tuesday. December 11, 1990 / Rules Regulations
process plants. As process sections are
modified and reconstructed over time.
more catalytic incinerators are likely to
be installed accompanied by an increase
in solid waste. Solid waste generated by
VOC equipment leak detection and
repair programs include mechanical
seals, seal packing, rupture disks, and
valves. The solid waste impact of these
programs are not anticipated to be
significant because of the ability to
recycle metal solid wastes and the small
quantity of wastes generated.
Noise impacts attibutable to the
promulgated standards is also expected
to be minimal. Flares can be a source of
noise pollution. Noise generated during
flaring results from unsteadiness in the
combustion process and steam injection.
Almost all polymer production
processes already have flares located on
site. Many of these flares may be used
to meet the promulgated standards. For
new flares, by employing proper flare
design and site selection, potential noise
impacts on community areas
surrounding each affected plant should
be minimal.
No adverse water impact and
radiation impacts are expected to occur
as a result of the promulgated
standards.
m. Energy Impacts
The promulgated standards would
increase energy consumption slightly in
most polymer plants through the
application of BDT for process
emissions. Nationwide, total energy
consumption due to process VOC
controls is estimated to increase
between 11 and 30 terajoules (TJ) per
year. The 11 TJ estimate is based upon
assumptions concerning how new
growth in the industry will occur and the
sharing of control devices by individual
affected facilities. The 30 TJ estimate is
a worst-case estimate in which all
growth is assumed to occur as
individual process sections and each
process section has its own control
device. These estimates of increased
energy consumption represent small
amounts of energy compared to that
required to produce a polymer. For
example, a HDPE solution process
model plant comprised of three process
lines would use approximately 24.000 TJ
per year. Thus, total nationwide energy
consumption is estimated to be between
0.05 and 0.13 percent of the energy
consumed in this one model plant
Application of BOT for equipment
leaks of VOC emissions is estimated to
reduce VOC emissions that have a total
energy value of approximately 66 TJ per
year. By taking into account this energy
value, the promulgated standards are •
estimated to result in a net decrease in
energy consumption of between 36 and
55 Tf per year in the fifth year after
these standards are in piace.
IV. Cost Impacts
The costs for these standards have
changed slightly since proposal. Capital
costs have increased for polystyrene
plants and PET plants reflecting revised
condenser costs, which, in part, took
into account potential freezing problems
that required a different condenser
system. The annual costs were also
revised to reflect revised unit price costs
for natural gas and electricity. The net
effect of these changes was marginal.
Total nationwide capital costs in the
fifth year following the promulgation of
these standards is estimated to be
approximately $4.3 to $4.5 million
(compared to S4.5 million at proposal)
and annual costs to be approximately
$1.3 million (down from $1.4 million at
proposal) (reported in June 1980 dollars).
Under the promulgated standards.
increased capital expenditures over the
baseline range from approximately
$4.600 per process line-equivalent in a
PET plant using a DMT process to
approximately $273.000 per process line-
equivalent in a polypropylene plant
using a liquid phase process. Annualized
cost increases range from about $1.400
per process line-equivalent in a PET
plant using a DMT process to
approximately $92,000 per process line-
equivalent in a polypropylene plant
using a liquid phase process.
V. Economic Impacts
Adverse impacts would be minor. If
all costs are passed through to the
customer, maximum price increases
range from less than 0.2 percent, for
plants producing PET using a DMT
process, to approximately 0.44 percent
for polypropylene plants using a liquid
phase process. The Agency has
determined that the costs of these
promulgated standards will not have
any significant impacts on the industry.
The environmental, energy, and
economic impacts are discussed in
greater detail in the background
information document for the proposed
standards. "Polymer Manufacturing
Industry—Background Information for
Proposed Standards." EPA-450/3-83-
019a. and in Docket Items IV-B-13 and
IV-B-22.
In addition, the incremental cost
effectiveness of alternative levels of
control were also evaluated in order to
determine the reasonableness of control
in light of the costs to reduce emissions
and to ensure that the controls required
by this rule are reasonable relative to
other regulations. Additional details on
costs can be found in the BID for the
proposed standards.
VI. Public Participation
Prior to proposal of the standards.
interested parties were advised by
public notice in the Federal Register (43
FR12825). March 28,1983. of a meeting
of the National Air Pollution Control
Techniques Advisory Committee to
discuss the standards for polymer
manufacturing plants recommended for
proposal. This meeting was held on
April 26. 27. and 28,1983. The meeting
was open to the public and each
attendee was given an opportunity to
comment on the standards
recommended for proposal.
The standards were proposed and
published in the Federal Register on
September 30,1987 (52 FR 36678) and
January 10.1989 (54 FR 890). The
preamble to the proposed standards
discussed the availability of the BID.
"Polymer Manufacturing Industry-
Background Information for Proposed
Standards," EPA-450/3-019a. which
described in detail the regulatory
alternatives considered and the impacts
of those alternatives. Public comments
were solicited at the time of proposal.
and copies of the BID were distributed
to interested parties.-
To provide- interested persons the
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards, a public hearing
was held on November 16.1987, at
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina.
The hearing was open to the public:
however, no one presented any
comments.
The public comment period was from
September 30.1987, to February 8.1988
for the September 30.1987. Federal
Register notice and from January 10.
1989. to February 21.1989. for the
January 10.1989. Federal Register notice.
Some 14 comment letters were received
on the first Federal Register notice and
11 comment letters on the second notice.
The comments have been carefully
considered and. where determined to be
appropriate by the Administrator.
changes have been made in the
proposed standards.
VTL Significant Comments and Changes
to the Proposed Standards
Comments on the proposed standards
were received from industry and trade
associations. A detailed discussion of
these comments and responses can be
found in the promulgation BID. which is
referred to in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble. The summary of
comments and responses in the BID
serve as the basis for the revisions that
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations 51021
have been made to the standards
between proposal and promulgation.
The major comments and responses arc
summarized in this preamble. Most of
the comment letters contained multiple
comments. The comments have been
divided into the following areas: Basis
for the Standards, Control Technology-
Process Emissions. Control Technology-
Equipment Leaks of VOC. Modification/
Reconstruction. Monitoring
Requirements, Test Methods and
Procedures, Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements, and
Miscellaneous.
Basis tor the Standards
Coverage of Processes
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-2.
IV-D-14) were concerned that processes
that produce certain elastomers and
rubber products would be covered by
the proposed standards, and that this
would be inappropriate. Commenter IV-
D-2 felt that the assumption made by
EPA that as long as the proportion of
propylene used in the production of
polypropylene copolymers is at least 50
percent by weight in the copolymer
product the production processes used
to manufacture both the polymer and
the copolymer are essentially the same.
and the resulting definition of
polypropylene would include
inappropriately their copoiymer
production facilities that produced
ethylene-propyiene terpolymers rubber
products, which are considered
"elastomers" under industry definitions.
This commenter stated that the intent of
these regulations is to cover
thermoplastics and then1 manufacturers.
and that there appears to be a lack of
documentation evidencing studies of the
processes of rubber manufacturers in
the Agency's published documentation.
Thus, this commenter concluded, any
regulation of their facilities without a
more comprehensive study that includes
the specific nature of design and
manufacture of synthetic rubber
producers in premature and could harm
any further expansion projects now
under consideration.
Commenter IV-D-14 stated that
several of their member companies
produce synthetic rubbers using
processes entirely unlike those used for
production of plastics composed of
polyethylene, polyproovtene,
polystyrene or poiybis(2-
hydroxyethyl)terephthalate. The
commenter noted that the composition
and physical arrangement of compounds
in the polymer molecule result in
physical characteristics, that am clearly
those of a rubber rather than a
"thermoplastic," The commenter pointed
out that none of their member
companies' ethyiene/propyiene/diene
monomers (EDPM) production facilities
were included in the surveys conducted
by EPA pnor to proposal of these rules.
In view of the major differences
between the polymerization and
finishing operations of the EPDM rubber
plants and those of the thermoplastic
resin plants, this commenter requested
that the proposed standards for
polyethylene and polypropylene apply
to certain sources in polymer
manufacturing plants that produce
copolymers consisting of at least 80
percent (rather than 50 percent) by
weight of ethylene or propylene.
respectively.
Response: The intent of these
standards is to cover certain producers
of thermoplastic or thermoset resins and
copolymers of these resins that are in
turn themselves thermoplastic or
thermoset resins. The Agency does not
intend for these standards to cover
synthetic rubber producers, including
manufacturers of thermoplastic or
thermoset elastomers, such as ethylene-
propyiene copolymers and terpolymers
that are elastomers or rubbers. Resins
are thermoplastic or thermoset polymers
that are essentially synonymous with
the term plastic. Elastomers are also
thermoplastic or thermoset polymers.
but are capable of returning the their
initial form following deformation.
Synthetic rubber and elastomer
producers, however may still be
regulated in the future under this
standard or a new standard should the
Agency decide such regulation is
warranted.
The Agency agrees that the definition
of polypropylene in the September 30.
1987. Federal Register notice would have
subjected certain elastomer and
synthetic rubber producers to these
standards, because the definition did
not contain the clarifying term
"thermoplastic". Therefore, the Asencv
has revised the definition of
polypropylene to include the term
'thermoplastic." The Agency believes
that the revision to the definition of
polypropylene limits the scope ot theso
standards appropriately.
Comment. One commenter (IV-D-1)
stated that there are more alternative
polypropylene technologies than tae t\vo
listed in BID Vol. I and in the proposed
regulations. This commenter assumed
that the new source performance
standards (NSPS) should be applicable
to all polypropylene processes. The
commenter then concluded that the
NSPS should be amended to include. »t
least the "bulk (liquid-phase)
polymerization technology ."The
commenter stated that bulk plant
technology, although in principle a
liqnid-phase polymerization process, is
unlike the "traditional" slurry process
and hence, conclusions drawn on the
basis of the "slurry process" do not
apply directly to the bulk process.
Commenter IV-D-45 also noted that
in order to determine applicability dates
for affected facilities (using Table's 1 and
2 of the proposed regulation), one must
still have a clear understanding of which
"production process" applies (the
applicable model plant) and the
definition of "process section" (which
equipment falls into which process
section), especially where plants have
commenced construction, modifications,
or reconstruction between the two
proposed regulation dates.
Response: The commenter is correct
in assuming that the standards proposed
in the September 30,1987, Federal
Register notice were to be applicable t;>
all polypropylene processes. At that
time, the Agency understood that all
such processes could be described as
either liquid phase or gas phase
processes and that the model plants
described in BID Vol. 1 were reasonable
representations of those processes upon
which to base standards. Comments
received on the September 30,1987,
Federal Register notice, however,
indicated that the polypropylene mocki .
plants may not be adequate
representations of all processes. As a
result of this and other comments, the
Agency undertook an analysis to
examine alternative ways to determine
which process emissions from
polypropylene (and polyethylene) plants
should be controlled. The results of this
anaivsis were presented in a January 10,
1989. Federal Register notice for public-
comment. The approach selected by the
Agency and incorporated into the final
rule is independent of the particular
process technology used to produce
po.'ynrnpylene or polyethylene. Thus.
the non-representatives of the
polypropylene, liquid phase-model plant
presented in BID Vol. I as it applies to
the bulk process is no longer a concern.
For polypropylene facilities that arc;
constructed, modified, or reconstruct™)
;itti>r September 30.1987. and on or
before lanuary 10.1989, the owner or
operator of such facilities must still
determine which process—liquid phasi-
or gci* phase—his or her facility falls
under for purposes of determining the
affected facilities. The final rule requires
an owner or operator to select one of the
production processes listed in Table 1 of
the final rule to apply to his or her
facility. The determination of which
omissions from these affected facilities
-------
51022 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesciav. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
would be controlled are made using the
new approach, which is independent of
process type, rather than the control/no
control decisions that were based on the
model plant. However, an owner or
operator can still use the uncontrolled
threshold emission rates proposed in the
September 30.1987. Federal Register
notice to exempt these affected facilities
from control, if he or she so elects.
Definition of Affected Facility
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13)
stated that the selection of process
sections as affected facilities results in
unreasonable cost and gives unfair trade
advantage to patent holders of these
processes which the Agency selected as
model plants. The commenter stated
that the proposed standards will require
companies with existing polymer plants
to divide up their plants into process
sections and process lines, creating a
need to develop expensive new
accounting and recordkeeping methods
and procedures to determine if
modifications occur. The commenter
stated that plants are not designed.
estimated, justified and built and cost
centers are not usually set up by process
sections. A large polypropylene or
polyethylene polymer plant may have as
many as to to 15 affected facilities.
according to the commenter. and over
the course of a year many small
changes may be made to these plants.
To evaluate whether a modification that
has been made falls under the proposed
rules, the commenter stated that
completely new accounting systems
must be developed and implemented.
For existing polypropylene and
polyethylene plants, the commenter
believes a more reasonable choice
would be to designate each process line
as the affected facility. The commenter
stated that a problem recognized by
EPA concerning the choice of process
units. i.e.. "a process line cannot be
determined clearly" (52 FR 36683). is
even more of a problem with the
selection of process section as the
affected facility. Specifically, the
commenter pointed out material
recovery is being utilized more and more
by the industry as a means of reducing
overall emissions. According to the
commenter. in the model plants studied
by the Agency, material recovery
occurred primarily after the reaction
section, while modern plants continue
the recovery of raw materials
throughout the process line, wherever it
can be done economically. The
commenter concluded that the
standards need to be revised to a
process line concept
Response: The main considerations in
selecting the definition of affected
facility are the application of best
demonstrated technology and the degree
to which replacement equipment is
brought under the standards. As a
result, narrower definitions are
preferred. This preference can be
overcome if analysis concludes that a
broader designation would result in
greater emission reductions or avoid
unreasonable impacts (i.e.. costs,
energy, or other environmental impacts).
The commenter's main point for
changing the definition of affected
facility is the need by industry to
develop and implement completely new
accounting systems to track costs for as
many as 10 to 15 affected facilities in a
large polypropylene or polyethylene
plant. The commenter also believes that
defining process sections is even more
difficult than defining a process line and
refers to changing practices of material
recovery in the industry.
The Agency disagrees with the
commenter on both points. The
imposition of new regulations on the
industry would likely require some
plants to develop new accounting
systems to track modifications and
reconstructions whether the .definition of
affected facility is "process section" or
"process line." Furthermore, under
either definition, the owner or operator
would still need to track all changes.
The only difference is the number of
affected facilities that would be tracked.
On this issue, the commenter claims that
10 to 15 affected facilities is too many.
The Agency simply disagrees with this
statement. The Agency rejected
designating each individual emission
point as an affected facility because a
typical plant may have as many as 40
individual process emission points: a
large plant may have substantially more.
In terms of process sections, the
commenter notes that a large plant may
have 10 to 15 process sections: a typical
plant would likely have fewer. The
number of process lines at any plant will
always be less than the number of
process sections: but. the Agency is not
convinced that at large plants 10 to 15
affected facilities is unreasonable.
With regard to the second point, the
commenter claims that the definition of
"process section" is even more of a
problem than that of a "process line."
The Agency again disagrees. The
example provided by the commenter
may not match the material recovery
section of the model plant but that is
irrelevant to the definition. The concept
of material recovery is the key aspect of
identifying the material recovery
process section or material recovery
process sections at a plant. (The Agency
has revised the definitions of the
process sections to help clarify the
placement of equipment in the
appropriate process section (see
§ 60.561. Definitions, of the final rule
'and § 2.2. Definition of Affected Facility
in the BID for the promulgated
standards).) Further, the Agency
identified a major conceptual problem
with trying to define a "process line."
where equipment was shared between
two otherwise distinct process lines.
The commenter offered no suggestions
as to how to deal with that problem.
In summary, the Agency finds no
reason to change the definition of
affected facility for process emissions.
Model Plant vs. Generic Approach
The majority of comments received
dealt with the appropriateness of using
model plants as the basis for
determining which process emissions
from polypropylene and polyethylene
plants would be subject to the
standards. Based on these comments.
the Agency has adopted a "generic"
approach in the final rule, which is
basically the same as that approach
presented in the January 10.1989.
Federal Register notice reopening the
public comment period.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-
6. IV-D-7. and IV-D-8) stated that, in
many cases, the model plants used to
develop this standard do not adequately
reflect current operation of
manufacturing plants. For example.
Commenter IV-D-7 referred to the
model plant for low density
polyethylene (LDPE) based on the
UNIPOL process. This commenter noted
that the model plant did not consider the
modified UNIPOL process that has a
peiletizer section added and the linear
low density polyethylene (LLDPE)
solution process. The commenter stated
that emission characteristics differ
significantly from the model plant, but
are controlled the same. The commenter
then stated that the gas phase process
for polypropylene failed to consider
emergency atmospheric vents that are
used on newer plants. Therefore.
Commenter IV-D-8 suggested that these
model plants be reviewed to ensure that
they are representative of operating
plants throughout the industry.
Similarly, Commenters IV-D-6 and IV-
D-fl stated that there are several aspects
of the fluid bed gas phase polyethylene
process model plant (used to describe
the LDPE low pressure and HOPE gas
phase processes) that do not reflect
actual current operations. A number of
specific discrepancies (and the changes
suggested by Commenter IV-D-8) were
identified by the commenters.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
51023
Commenter IV-D-8 also stated that
by using reaction mechanisms as the
models for developing the NSPS control
requirements EPA has tailored the rule
to these particular patented processes
and that this provides an unfair
advantage for both the licensors and
licensees of those technologies because
the sale of licenses is due, in part, to the
ability of a process to comply with
applicable environmental standards.
The commenter pointed to the low
pressure. LDPE process as the best
example. The commenter stated that
when the model plant for this process
was developed, the only process in use
was a fluid bed gas phase facility
licensed by a major U.S. chemical
company. Since that time, the
commenter continues, both a slurry and
a solution process have been revised to
produce the linear low density product,
and a new gas phase facility licensed by
a major British petrochemical company
is currently under construction.
According to the commenter, these
newer processes differ greatly from the
low pressure process that the Agency
considers state-of-the-art. The
commenter notes that if the NSPS is
promulgated as written, it will require
that similar new installations, as well as
existing units that are modified or
reconstructed, be equipped with
emission controls designed specifically
for the fluid bed gas phase facility. The
commenter suggests that the economic
penalty resulting from this action be
considered before the regulation is
finalized.
This commenter then suggested that it
might be more appropriate for EPA to
establish control requirements based on
the system pressure and process type
rather than the specific technology used
because system pressure (not reaction
mechanism) is the primary factor
influencing emissions from polyolefin
manufacturing facilities and will
determine the relative ease at which
unreacted raw materials are removed
from reacted mixtures. The commenter
also stated that system pressure will
also be a factor in defining the process
step from which the unreacted raw
material will be emitted, noting that the
higher pressure processes tend to hold
on to the unreacted materials longer.
thereby yielding greater emissions in
later process steps (i.e.. product
storage).
The commenter illustrated this
suggestion by breaking the polyethylene
processes into two broad classes—high
and low pressure. Under the low
pressure classification, the commenter
indicated that there are presently three
commercial processes—(1) Gas phase.
(2) liquid slurry and (3) liquid solution.
According to the commenter. each of
these processes in the newer and more
recently modified plants has the
capability of manufacturing both HDPE
and LDPE. Under the high pressure
classification, the commenter indicated
that there are presently two commercial
processes—(l) tubular and (2)
autoclave—both of which manufacture
conventional LDPE.
The commenter pointed out that under
the proposed regulation, if these low
pressure solution or slurry process
plants manufacture LLDPE then they
are grouped with the gas phase model
plant, while if they manufacture HDPE.
they are grouped with either the HDPE
solution model or the HDPE slurry
model. The problem or inconsistency
with this result according to the
commenter, is that from a product.
process, and emissions point of view.
when a solution plant manufactures
LLDPE it actually more closely
resembles the HDPE solution "model and
when a slurry plant manufactures
LLDPE. it more closely resembles the
HDPE slurry model than the gas phase
model plant Finally, the commenter
pointed out that the product finishing
areas of modern solution and slurry
LDPE plants resemble the HDPE
solution and HDPE slurry model plants
much more than they do the gas phase
model plant.
Commenter IV-D-6 stated that there
are no intermittent (non-emergency)
vents from the product finishing and
product storage process sections in high
pressure. LDPE plants. This commenter
pointed out that continuous emissions
from these two process sections were
not proposed for control and felt
therefore, that these sections should not
be considered as affected facilities.
Response: These comments were
made in response to the September 30.
1987. Federal Register notice. The
Agency took these comments under
consideration and as a result of
extensive analysis presented in the
January 10,1989. Federal Register notice,
a new approach for determining which
process emissions from all
polypropylene and polyethylene plants
would be subject to control. The new
approach encompasses all emission
streams and process sections in these
types of polymer plants as an integral
part of the new approach. The new
approach does away with die need to
define model plants and the Agency
determined it was unnecessary to revise
the model plants. Under the new
approach, it may be possible that certain
processes do not have one type of
emissions from certain process sections
or lack one of the basic process sections.
It is not the intent of the new approach
to identify such specific situations,
thereby potentially limiting its
applicability, if not now. then in the
future as processes change. Therefore,
the Agency has retained as designated
affected facilities under the new
approach all process sections and
emissions from polypropylene and
polyethylene plants, as was presented in
the January 10.1989, Federal Register
notice.
Low VOC Concentration Streams
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-6,
IV-D-8, IV-D-13) expressed concern
over requiring control of dilute streams.
Commenters IV-D-6 and IV-D-a stated
that the Agency has not demonstrated
that using a device that is 98 percent
efficient or reducing the TOG
concentration to 20 ppmv on a dry basis
(corrected to three percent oxygen
content) is either possible or
economically reasonable for dilute gas
streams. The commenters noted that
control of dilute streams has become
much more significant since the industry
now relies more heavily on material
recovery for control and, as a result, the
extent to which low concentration
(TOC) streams now exist in these
processes was not anticipated and the
difficulty and expense involved in
controlling these streams was not
considered by EPA. Commenters IV-D-8
and IV-D-13 concluded, that, unless
EPA can establish the availability and
cost effectiveness of controls for dilute
gas streams, controls should not be
required.
Commenter IV-D-8 also stated that if
BID Vol. I did in fact establish that 20
ppmv is the lowest VOC concentration
achievable by combustion of gas
streams containing less than 2.000 pprr.v
VOC. then the lowest achievable VOC
concentration is controlled far greater
than the best technology system called
for by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
Finally, the commenters suggested
that EPA should also establish a
procedure in the regulation that would
exempt any dilute concentration stream
in any affected facility from control if it
can be shown that control of that stream
is not cost effective. Commenter IV-D-a
suggested as one possible way to do this
is to consider the application of a Total
Resource Effective (TRE) Index to the
subject vent streams. This was also
suggested by the other two commenters.
If a suitable alternative test cannot be
provided, the commenter (IV-D-8)
continued. EPA should exempt all low
concentration streams from control in
this standard using the same rationale it
-------
51024 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 233 / Tue'scfav. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
used to exempt the continuous vent
streams from the product storage bins.
Response: The BID for the proposed
standards summarized information
contained in Docket Items 1I-B-4 and II-
B-5. These docket items contain the
conclusions reached by EPA concerning
thermal incinerator performance over a
number of tests. The Agency believes
that the conclusions reached in those
docket items are still valid and support
the proposed standard. Furthermore, the
new approach presented in the January
10.1989. Federal Register notice and
adopted in the final rule considers a
wide range of low VOC concentration
streams and the cost of their control for
determining the level of emissions
necessary for control to be cost
effective. The final rule incorporates a
low VOC concentration exemption for
new and existing affected facilities.
With regard to specific points raised
by the commenters. one commenter (IV-
D-8) suggested that 20 ppmv is more
stringent than the best technology
system called for by Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act (presumably calculating
99 percent reduction (2000-20/
1:000=0.99)1, which is more stringent
than the 98 percent destruction. The
commenter is incorrect but the Agency
understands the confusion. In evaluating
the performance capabilities of
incinerators, the Agency examined a
large number of streams that had
combustion air added to them prior to
being combusted. For these streams, the
tests showed a leveling off at 20 ppmv at
the outlet when the concentration of
streams with combustion air fell below
1.000 ppmv. In other words. 98 percent
destruction was still being achieved by
emission streams with combustion air
that had VOC concentrations down to
1.000 ppmv. Many of the streams
examined, however, required
combustion air to be added to them. The
amount of combustion air required
typically reduced the VOC
concentration by one-half. Thus. 2.000
ppmv of VOC before combustion air is
required could be incinerated by 98
percent (on a weight basis). In summary,
the 20 ppmv standard does not require a
greater degree of control than the best
technology system, which is 98 percent
destruction by weight
Comment: Four commenters (I V-D-39,
rv-D-w/rv-D-^o. IV-D-M. rv-o-w)
expressed concern over the lack of an
exemption for streams with less than 0.1
weight percent VOC from new affected
facilities. The commenters noted that
the Agency's reason for excluding new
affected facilities from the low VOC
concentration exclusion was to preclude
operators from purposefully diluting
streams to benefit from the exemption.
Commenter IV-D-39 pointed out that
"intentional dilution is circumvention of
control, which is already forbidden."
The commenters all believed that the
lack of this exemption would result in
the imposition of controls that were not
cost effective. Commenter IV-D-43/50
identified several reasons as to why
very low VOC concentrations (0 to 5-
percent of the lower explosive level
(LEL)) are found in the industry and
stated that EPA should not require
companies to compromise safety by
requiring higher VOC concentrations
when history has led industry to use
more dilute levels to ensure employee
safety.
As a group, the commenters
recommended that EPA use the same
procedures for determining control of
dilute VOC streams (<5.5 weight
percent VOC) for new affected facilities
as it did for modified and reconstructed
facilities, and the EPA promulgate the
same provisions for determining control
required for new facilities as it has
proposed for modified and reconstructed
facilities. Commenter 1V-D-45 stated
that not to do so would subject the
proposal to allegations that it is not
representative of all affected facilities in
the categories being regulated, hence
defective.
Response: The Agency has carefully
considered this issue. The Agency is still
concerned that new facilities could be
designed so as to "take advantage" of a
low VOC concentration cutoff, and at
less expense than the cost of controlling
the streams. One commenter (IV-D-43/
50) indicated that the Agency could
compare ihe purge air rates of a new
facility with existing rates. The-Agency
agrees that this could be a useful
mechanism to evaluate whether a
company is trying to intentionally dilute
the stream to circumvent the rule. The
Agency is concerned that this is not
necessarily applicable in all cases.
either because it is a first time facility
for an owner or operator or because its
technology is sufficiently different from
the technology at existing facilities that
a comparison is inappropriate. Another
commmenter (IV-D-45) pointed out that
the nature of storage bin purges are such
that the VOC concentration is initially
high and drops over time, and that such
equipment and air purges are designed
so that the maximum concentration
would be between 20 and 25 of the I.EI,,
The Agency believes that recognition of
this design feature is a useful tool for
evaluating whether "to much" dilution is
taking place. This again is somewhat
limited in that not all dilute streams will
have VOC concentrations that vary as
dramatically as might occur in storage
bins. On the other hand, designing
storage bin air purge rates so as to have
maximum VOC concentrations at 20 and
25 percent of the LEL makes it more
difficult to justify streams that are
diluted so that the maximum VOC
concentration is significant below this
level. By examining these and other
items (e.g.. design criteria for pneumatic
conveyors), the Agency now believes
that there are a sufficient number of
indicators that can be used to judge
whether intentional circumvention is
being practiced at new facilities.
Therefore, the Agency has extended
both the VOC concentration exemption
and the calculated threshold emission
equations used for existing affected
facilities to new affected facilities.
Applicability of Generic Approach
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-W)
stated that the model plant approach.
contained in the September 30.1987.
proposal, excluded certain process
sections from being affected facilities for
both continuous and intermittent
emissions, and that the January 10.1989.
proposal appears to provide an
exemption for only facilities exempted
by Table 1. According to the commenter.
it would be unfair to penalize projects
which commenced construction.
modification, or reconstruction under
this September 30.1987, guidance and
on or before the January 10.1989.
proposal, which were not designated as
affected facilities in the September 30.,
1987, proposal. The commenter then
stated that the Agency recognized (54
FR 90S) that certain emissions and
process sections not required to be
controlled under the standards proposed
on September 30.1987, may be required
to be controlled under the new approach
and therefore, the Agency proposed to
resolve this potential compliance
problem by proposing a new
applicability date (i.e.. January 10.1989)
for those facilities that would have been
excluded under the original proposal.
but subject under the new approach.
The commenter recommended that the
model plant approach (September 30.
1987. proposal) should be the governing
standard for polypropylene and
polyethylene construction, modification.
and reconstruction projects which can
be shown to have commenced after
September 30,1987. but on or before
January 10,1989.
Response: The January 10.1989.
Federal Register notice does what the
commenter recommends in Table 2 of
the regulation portion of that notice.
Table 2 lists all the emission and
process sections that were excluded as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations 51025
affected facilities in the September 30.
1987, notice and applies a January 10.
1989. applicability date to these
emissions and process sections. Thus, as
indicated in the January 10.1989.
Federal Register notice and as provided
for in the final rule, only those process
sections identified in the September 30.
1987. Federal Register notice are
affected facilities when constructed.
modified, or reconstructed after
September 30.1987. and on or before
January 10.1989. for the appropriate
continuous or intermittent emissions. It
should be noted that the procedure for
determining control or no control of the
emissions from these process sections is
the "generic" or new approach. The
uncontrolled threshold emission rates
proposed in the September 30.1987.
Federal Register notice, however, can
still be used for these affected facilities.
if an owner or operator so elects, to
exempt individual process sections from
control. (Note: Process sections that are
exempted on the basis of an
uncontrolled threshold emission rate
become subject to the standards if the
uncontrolled emissions exceed the
uncontrolled threshold emission rate at
a later date or if the process section is
modified or reconstructed after January
10.1989.)
Comment: One commontcr (IV-D-5)
stated that it is possible for equipment
to be designed to produce more than one
of the polymers covered by the proposed
standards. The commenter pointed out
that the preamble indicates that merely
switching production from one type of
polymer to another would not be
classified as a "modification" as long as
the original equipment was designed to
accommodate both products. The
commenter requested clarification as to
which category of polymer process (and
thus standards) would be applicable to
new facilities that are designed to
produce more than one polymer using
the same process equipment
Response: The situation described by
the commenter had not been envisioned
by the Agency when the standards were
proposed on September 30.1987. Where
a new facility is constructed, modified.
or reconstructed after January 10,1989,
the situation described by the
commenter does not exist because the
same procedure is applied for
determining control regardless of
whether a LOPE. HDPE, or
polypropylene product is being
produced. However if a facility is built
after September 30.1987. and on or
before January 10.1989, the standards to
be met could be different where that
facility is designed to produce more than
one polymer (e.g., HDPE and LDPE) as
different process sections (and their
emissions) were designated as affected
facilities depending upon whether HDPE
or LDPE was being produced. As
presented in the January 10,1989,
Federal Register notice, the new
approach did not guide an operator or
owner in determining which process
sections are to be considered affected
facilities for those process sections
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
on or before January 10.1989, where two
types of polymers (e.g.. LDPE and HDPE)
are produced in the same equipment.
In addition, the uncontrolled threshold
emission rate to be applied in exempting
emissions from control differ depending
on whether HDPE or LDPE is being
produced. The January 10,1989, Federal
Register notice allowed owners or
operators the option to exempt from
control emissions that under the new
approach would require control, but
could be shown under the model plant
approach to be exempt from control
through the use of the uncontrolled
threshold emission rate exemption.
(Note: Process sections that are
exempted on the basis of an
uncontrolled threshold emission rate
become subject to the standards if the
uncontrolled emissions exceed the
uncontrolled threshold emission rate at
a later date or if the process section is
modified or reconstructed after January
10.1989.)
The Agency considered several
options to clarify which process sections
and uncontrolled threshold emission
rates are to be used where a facility is
designed to produce more than one
polymer using the same process
equipment. Of the options considered.
the Agency selected the option that
would allow the owner/operator to
select one model plant (presumably the
one that most closely matches the
hybrid facility) for the purpose of
determining the affected facilities with a
September 30.1987, applicability date
and use the uncontrolled threshold
emission rates for those process sections
as identified in the September 30.1987,
Federal Register notice.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-7.
IV-D-8. IV-D-13) recommended that
any existing facility which becomes
modified should not have to meet the
requirements of section 60.562-1 if the
facility's existing emissions (controlled
or uncontrolled) are already equal to or
less than the rates in Table 1 of the
proposed standards. The commenters
stated that proposed exemption rates
failed to consider that there are some
existing facilities, which will become
modified, that are already achieving
significant emission reductions through
existing State and prevention of
significant deterioration permits, and
that additional controls are likely to be
installed on existing facilities as a result
of State Implementation Plan revisions
for ozone nonattainment areas.
Another commenter (IV-D-47) stated
that the criteria for determining
applicability should not be termed
"uncontrolled emissions," but
"Federally enforceable emissions limits"
in order to allow credit for the emissions
controls that have already been required
by State Air Pollution Control Agencies.
Response: The Agency agrees that the
regulation needs to take into account
emission streams that are already
controlled as a result of State
regulations, especially those that are
Federally enforceable. The promulgated
regulation requires an owner or operator
to examine the uncontrolled emissions
(i.e.. those that would be emitted to the
atmosphere in the absence of an add-on
control device). Where an emission
stream in an affected.facility is
controlled by an existing control device
(i.e., one that was operating before
September 30,1987. or one that was
operating between September 30,1987.
and January 10.1989. on emissions from
a process section that was not identified
as an affected facility hi the September
30.1987, Federal Register notice), the
inlet conditions to the control device
would be examined to determine
whether that emission stream is
required to be controlled by BDT.
Individual streams that are vented to the
same control device constitute a single
stream. The following describes how
control determinations are to be made
for controlled streams.
For polypropylene and polyethylene
affected facilities with an applicability
date of September 30.1987, but before
January 10.1989. the inlet emission rate
is compared to the uncontrolled
threshold emission rate for the
appropriate process section and type of
emission (i.e.. continuous or
intermittent). If the inlet emission rate is
equal to or less than the corresponding.
uncontrolled threshold emission rate, no
further control is required. However, if
the inlet emission rate were to exceed
the uncontrolled threshold emission rate
at some time in the future, then the new
approach for determining which process
emissions are required to meet the
standards, as discussed in the following
paragraphs, would be used to
redetermine whether these emissions
need to be controlled to meet the
standards in the final rule. The new
approach would also be used in those
instances where the inlet emission rate
-------
.11026
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rales Regulations
is greater than the corresponding
uncontrolled threshold emission rate.
For polypropylene and polyethylene
affected facilities with a January 10.
1389. applicability date ajid for those
Facilities identified above, the new
approach would be used. Under the new
approach, the annual emissions of the
inlet emission stream would be
compared to the CTE level, which would
he calculated based on the TOG weight
percent of the inlet stream.
If the emissions (Mg/yr) of the stream
entering the control device are greater
than or equal to the CTE level, then that
stream is subject to DDT (98 percent
reduction. 20 ppmv. control in flare
meeting the specified operating
conditions). If the existing control device
is meeting BDT. then no further control
of the stream (or combined streams) is
required. If the existing control device is
not meeting BDT (e.g.. only achieves 90
percent reduction), then the emission
stream is required to be controlled to
DDT at the next available opportunity.
The Agency considers this to be a
reasonable approach because the cost of
immediately retrofitting the control
Jevice would be high compared to the
incremental emission reduction
obtained during the interim period. The
next available opportunity constitutes
the next time the existing control device
is reconstructed or replaced or its
operation is changed as the result of
changes in State or local requirements.
At such time, any uncontrolled
emissions in the same weight percent
range from any affected facility are also
required to be controlled.
if the emissions (Mg/yr) of the stream
entering the control device are less than
the CTE level. BDT Is not required at
that time. Whenever the existing control
device is reconstructed, replaced, or
changed (as discussed above), the
controlled stream is reevaiuated to see if
BDT is required by combining its annual
inlet emissions with the annual
emissions of any uncontrolled vent
stream within the same weight percent
range and comparing the combined
emissions to the CTE level, which is
calculated based on the TOG weight
percent of the combined emissions. If
these combined emissions are now
equal to or greater than the CTE level.
BDT is required for the controlled and
uncontrolled vent streams.
It is important to note that the "delay"
in applying BDT to a controlled stream
does not affect the timing for applying
BDT to uncontrolled emission streams.
Application of BDT is required for all
uncontrolled emissions as soon as the
total annual emissions for a combined
stream (or single stream) are equal to or
greater than the CTE level for the weight
percent.
For all polystyrene and PET affected
facilities, if the iniet emission rate is less
than or equal to the uncontrolled
threshold emission rate, then the
existing control does not need to be
BDT. If the inlet emission rate is greater
than the uncontrolled threshold
emission rate, then the stream is
required to meet DDT at the next
available opportunity (as niscussed
above).
Control Technology—Process Emissions
Intermittent Emissions
Comment: Commenters identified
several concerns related to the January
10.1989. Federal Register notice
regarding the proposed generic
approach for determining which
intermittent emissions from
polyethylene and polypropylene plants
would be required to be controlled.
Commenter IV-D-43 pointed out that the
regulation presented in the January 10.
1989. Federal Register notice, which now
requires that intermittent vents in an
affected facility be combusted by a
flare, allows an exemption for
decompositions, but no longer exempts
emergency intermittent streams
[§ 60.562-l(a)(2)| as was provided for in
the September 30.1987, Federal Register
notice. The commenter stated that the
exemption for emergency vents should
be retained for reasons of personal
safety, lack of available technology, and
cost. Primarily for these reasons, the
commenters also expressed concern
over the definition of decomposition.
The following paragraphs summarize
these comments into one of three
categories: (1) The availability and
adequacy oi technology for controlling
all intermittent releases other than
decompositions: (2) the cost of
controlling emergency releases other
than decompositions: and (3) the
definition of "decomposition". For
additional detail, please refer to section
2.8.8. Emergency Stream Exemption, in
Chapter 2. and section 3.3. Intermittent
Emissions, in Chapter 3 of BID Vol. II.
Control technology. Several
commenters questioned the availability
of controls for non-decomposition
emergency releases and the safety of
requiring controls for such releases.
Commenters made this comment
primarily in reference to high pressure
releases from the LDPE. high pressure
process.
Commenter IV-D-48 stated that
facilities required to capture non-
decomposition emergency releases in a
high pressure plant would likely have to
design to criteria for facilities designed
to capture decomposition emissions.
because decomposition emissions arp
SO'.P? to exit through the same
f mergency release system (i.e.. open
dump valves or blown rupture discs]
According to the commenter, a
containment system to capture a high
pressure emergency release would
create an undesirable safety risk
because of the enormous size of the
system and the possibility of
overpressurization or internal ignition
that could cause a catastrophic
explosion. To minimize these problems.
the commenter stated that an enormous
vent collection system would be
required to collect the emergency
release and feed it to a fiare. and each
emergency vent collection system would
require a sophisticated polymer filtfinng
system that would not create
backpressure in the system. The
commenter stated that they were not
aware of any such system in this
service. Commenter IV-D-47 stated that.
until technology to control such releases
is developed, safety concerns should
mandate venting such releases to trip
air.
More generally, Commenter iV-D-44
stated that the requirement that each
intermittent vent stream other than
decompositions be controlled does not
take into account that'some intermittent
streams for safety reasons cannot be
controlled in a flare system. This
commenter pointed out that relief valves
are extensively used in the chemical
industry for protecting pressure vessels
from the over-pressunzation which may
occur for a number of reasons (i.e.. fire.
exothermic reaction, inadequate
cooling). The commenter noted that.
based on the definition of "Intermittent
Emissions" (52 FR 36707). the emissions
from relief valves would be included as
an intermittent emission source, thus
requiring control. This commenter stated
that relief valves in the polyethylene
industry are primarily vented to flare
systems and secondary relief devices
that vent emissions to the atmosphere
are only used when normal venting to
flare is too slow to protect plant
personnel from injury or prevent
mechanical damage to the plant. As an
example, the commenter noted that
should for any reason the flare header
become plugged (which has happened)
and a plant experiences an emergency
situation, the secondary relief valve
would be the only avenue of process
relief to protect personnel and
equipment. In the commenter's opinion.
requiring these to be controlled would
compromise the safety and integrity of '
the process unit.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Ralea Regulations
S1H27
Costs. Most commenters \l V-D-39.
IV-D-42. IV-D-43. 1V-D-44. 45. 48. 47.
48) expressed concern .over the coats of
controlling certain intermittent streams
that would be incurred because of the
way&e types of intermittent streams
were defined in the January 10.1989.
Federal Register notice. Commenter IV-
D-39 painted out that their HDPEjmd
polypropylene plants da not contain
decomposition streams, hut they do
have runaway reactions. The commenter
pointed out .that they have in the past
installed rupture discs under pressure
safety valves 4o vent to the atmosphere
emissions from these runaway
reactions. According to the commenter.
these .emissions would not be allowed to
be vented to the atmosphere under the
proposed rule presented in the January
10.1989, .Federal Register notice, .and
significantly higher equipment costs
(e,g~ flare header size) would be
incurred.
Commenter IV-D-44stated that
routing of other emergency vent streams.
which currently utilizes an automatic
control mechanism for atmospheric
venting, to a control device may be
significantly different in cost for retrofit
of an existing unit versus cost for a stew
unit that the cost for retrofitting the
control and associated hardware would
be excessive, and therefore the
regulation should allow for a cost
effective-justification review for retrofit
requirements.
Commenter 1V-D-46 stated the cost of
controlling ingh pressure emergency
releases, as would be required by the
proposed procedure outlined in the
January 10.1989. Federal Register notice.
would be prohibitive, if achievable. This
commenter stated that the control
facilities required to capture a high
pressure, non-decomposition emergency
release or a high pressure
decomposition emergency release would
be similar in design and cost the control
of either would be not cost effective:
and. therefore, all emergency releases
should be excluded from the need to be
controlled.
Two commemers iIV-D-42 and IV-D-
48) expressed concern that the proposed
standards as presented in the January
10.1989. Federal Register notice would
require control of the UNIPOL
emergency reactor Slowdown. These
ccmnenters indicated that these
emergency slowdowns are very
infrequent and occur, as a result of a
runaway reaction. The commenters
stated that the consequences of not
having an emergency blowdown are
quite costly (because of a resin
meltdown in the reaction). Commenter
IV-D-42 stated that the alternative of
using 4 very darge flare to handle these
very short duration emergency
blowdowns is extremely expensive and
has been documented on their comments
to the September 30,1987, proposed rule.
Definition. Several commenters
expressed concern that the definition of
decomposition, which was proposed in
the January 10.1989. Federal Register
notice, •would exclude certain
intermittent streams that should also be
exempted from control requirements
under these standards. Commenter IV-
D-47 stated that the distinction between
decomposition releases and planned
releases to prevent decomposition is a
matter of semantics more than a
technical difference as the technological
difficulties for controlling each release
are similar. The commenter pointed out
that the time interval between detection
of a need to release and the time that
decomposition actually occurs is on the
order of one second. According to
Commenter IV-D-44. there is no system
that can distinguish between an out-of-
control condition and a false indication.
therefore the same preventative
measures must be taken quickly in
either case to protect equipment and
personnel
Another type of comment concerning
the definition of decomposition was that
certain facilities did not experience
decompositions, but had other types of
runaway reactions or upset conditions
that should also be excluded from
control because of the high costs of
controlling such releases. As noted
earlier, two commenters (IV-D-42 and
IV-D-48) were concerned that the
definition of decomposition did not
appear to include the UNIPOL
emergency reactor blowdowns. Due to
the cost of control, these commenters
recommended that UNIPOL emergency
reactor blowdowns be excluded from
control in the same manner as
"decompositions."
Commenter IV-D-47 stated that the
Agency's proposed rules should provide
an exemption for upset operations
emissions in the polypropylene process.
Commenters IV-D-47 noted that current
polypropylene technology is such that
runaway reactions do not occur. In the
event of a power failure affecting the
recirculation compressors, the
commenter stated that the reactor beds
would no longer be fluidized and unless
the reactor is vented the reaction will
continue to the point of making one
large polymer "chunk" in the reactor.
According to the commenter. the dean
up procedure following such an
occurrence would require personnel to
enter the reactor-vessel where potential
pockets of decomposition gas remain.
The poryraer "chunk" would have to be
cut into small blocks using air-driven
saws. The downtime required for tiiis
situation may take two weeks and be
very labor intensive .and costly. The
commenter pointed out that while such
an occurrence is very infrequent upset
operations emissions do occur and
requested that they be addressed in tfcf?
proposed regulations.
Response.-The Agency partially
agrees with the commenters. The
Agency agrees that the definition of
"decomposition" was ^uniruennorial!y)
too narrow and would have resulted in
costly applications of the technology.
On the other hand, die Agency has
found control systems available and
demonstrated for all types of
intermittent emissions, although such
systems are not used uniformly
throughout the industry. The Agency has
found that process design is an
important factor in the particular control
system used at a plant. Thus, some
intermittent emissions are released to
the atmosphere because thev are a part
of the process design for maintaining
normal operations, for preventing more
senous process upsets, ?r for relieving
process equipment when process
conditions exceed die design capacity of
the system. Regardless of die particular
set of intermittent emissions a parncnlai
system was found to'cnntroL in every
case, each system can be designed and
operated in a safe manner. However, thr
Agency agrees with the commenters tha >
some types of intermittent releases inay
not be reasonable to control on the bzrsi.,
of the costs and emission reduction
involved. The following paragranhs
focus the Agency's response to this net
of comments in the same three serrerai
areas as used above: Control
technology, costs, and definition.
Control technology. The commemers
were primarily concerned with the
availability of technology- for controlling
non-decomposition emissions from
LDRE. high pressure plants. These
emissions can be very similar to
decompositions emissions in terms of
the length of release (very short) and the
magnitude of die volume of the release
(very large). The commenters also
mentioned the control of relief valves
that protect process vessels during time'
of fire, exothermic reactions, and
inadequate cooling. The commenters Łrl:
that the definition of decomposition in
the January 10.1989. Federal Register
notice would require control of these
streams, •and that such control
technology was unavailable for the safe
control of-such streams. The Agency
understands and concurs with the need
to pro vide-safe operations and does no:
-------
51023
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 19'.30 / Ruies Regulations
expect that operators would do anything
unsafe in response to these standards.
There is always the possibility of safety
concerns with any manufacturing
process, including its air pollution
control equipment. The Agency expects
operators to act prudently when
complying with the standards by
designing and operating air pollution
control equipment properly. In selecting
BUT and drafting standards. EPA
considers only demonstrated
technologies, as required by the Clean
Air Act. and. therefore, only requires
technologies that can be properly
designed and operated.
Intermittent releases from polymer
manufacturing plants can be among the
largest sources of VOC emissions at a
plant Some of these releases have high
volumes released in very short periods
of times. During the development of
these standards, the Agency has
collected much information on a variety
of polypropylene and polyethylene
processes and their emission control
systems. The control of decomposition
emissions was found to have occurred
at a single LOPE, high pressure facility
(see Docket Item II-D-7). None of the
other LDPE, high pressure facilities
controlled decomposition emissions. The
control of non-decomposition emergency
releases varies from among facilities
and types of processes. At least two
LDPE. high pressure plants control some
of the non-decomposition releases.
which include safety valve discharges.
and releases from various process
upsets and certain types of equipment
malfunctions (e.g.. seal and gasket
"blow outs"). Other types of plants
(polypropylene: LDPE. low pressure or
gas phase: and HDPE) control similar
types of emissions, although one type of
emissions controlled at one plant may
not be controlled at another. Those
emissions that generally are
uncontrolled throughout the industry
include releases that occur as a result of
fire, power failure, and other unexpected
events that could lead to severe
equipment or personnel injury if not
vented to the atmosphere. However.
even some of these emissions are
controlled at certain plants. For
example, most of the polypropylene.
liquid phase plants for which
information has been gathered control
all emergency-type releases. The
following two paragraphs describe, in
detail, the intermittent control systems
employed at two different facilities.
One company (see Docket Item II-B-
75) sends pressure relief emissions from
the compressors at a LDPE. high
pressure plant to the plant's flare. These
safety relief valves regulate the pressure
in the system around the compressors.
When pressures go "too high." these
\ alves open and relieve the pressure.
This pressure relief system protects the
equipment from internal problems. At
this plant, seals, gaskets, or some other
equipment will occasionally "blow out,"
creating a hazardous situation unless
brought under immediate control. A
"block and dump" valve system is
employed to handle this situation.
Combustible gas alarms signal an
operator that an explosive situation has
arisen. The operator will activate the
block and dump system. Valves are
opened to evacuate the ethylene in the
system at the point where the leak has
occurred and dump it to the flare. At the
same time, the main ethylene feed to the
area is blocked off. the reaction is
stopped, and the catalyst feed is shut
off. This block and dump system is
designed to protect the equipment from
external problems. Decompositions are
accidents, unplanned runaway reactions
that occur due to bearing failure, too
much catalyst, or some unknown cause.
This company does not attempt to
recognize and prevent decompositions.
When one does occur, they review the
incident to try to determine the cause.
Once the cause is found, the company
tries to implement whatever may be
necessary to reduce the likelihood of the
triggering cause from recurring. The only
emissions at this plant that are not
vented to the flare are the
decompositions. This company stressed
that to require the venting of
decompositions to a flare would be
outside their safety practices.
Another company (see Docket Item
IV-D-55) uses a multi-stage relief
system to protect plant equipment
against overpressure in two stages. This
company uses a system of automatically
controlled vents, operator activated
vents, and relief devices to discharge
vents that result from normal plant
upsets and equipment malfunctions to a
closed system, such as a flare or
incinerator. Relief vents that result from
emergency conditions, such as fires.
total loss of power, and runaway
reactions, are discharged to the
atmosphere through relieving devices.
which are set slightly above the set
pressure of the first stage relieving
device. More specifically, for this
company's polypropylene and
polyethylene flash chambers, the relief
valves discharging to the flare provides
overpressure protection for the flash
chamber for typical process upsets.
whereas the additional relief valves
discharge to the atmosphere in the event
of an emergency condition resulting
from a plant power failure or fire, and in
the case of the polypropylene flash
chambers, from a runaway reaction in
the polypropylene reactor. In the case of
the polyethylene reactor, the relief valve
discharging to the atmosphere provides
overpressure protection for the reactor
in the event of fire in the polyethylene
reactor. Both reactor systems are
designed to withstand all other possible
causes of overpressure.
In summary, the Agency believes that
the control technology exists for the safe
control of any intermittent release that
may occur at a facility subject to these
standards. However, the cost of
achieving such control may be
sufficiently high as not to warrant
control under these standards. The
following section of this response
addresses the costs of control.
Costs. The Agency has costed flame
systems for controlling the various types
of emergency releases identified by the
commenters (see Docket Items iI-D-105.
IV-B-11. and IV-B-12). Generally, the
cost of controlling decomposition
omissions exceeded S7,000/Mg of VOC
reduction and was as high as S200.000/
Mg of VOC reduction. The cost of
controlling runaway reaction releases
from UNIPOL polypropylene and
polyethylene process were generally
around S9.000/Mg of VOC reduction.
Based on these findings, the Agency
believes that the cost of controlling hiyh
volumes of flow that are released over
short periods of time under the
circumstances described by the
commenters are unreasonable given the
resulting emission reduction. Based on
the information provided by the
commenters and previously by the
industry as a whole, these releases are
related to operating conditions that are
abnormal and abnormal to the point that
the design of the process cannot return
conditions to normal operations. In at
least one instance, in the case of
emissions during attempts to prevent
decompositions, these releases are
triggered to prevent a decomposition
from occurring although there is no
guarantee that a decomposition would
actually have occurred if the release
was not made. However, the explosive
nature of a decomposition and the
rapidity with which it occurs makes it
virtually impossible to distinguish
between situations. Thus, the Agency
decided to "broaden" the definition of
decomposition emissions to include
those emissions that occur as a result of
attempts to prevent decompositions.
In contrast, some polymer producers
use pressure relief valves or other
mechanisms to vent emissions from
process vessels as part of the process
design for operating the vessels under
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 238 / Tuesday. December
1990 / Rules Regulations 51029
normal operating conditions and certain
upset conditions, and for maintaining
normal process conditions. Examination
of the information available indicates
that these emissions have been
controlled and can .be controlled cost
effectively. The costs of controlling
intermittent emissions from
polypropylene and polyethylene plants
were estimated based on the model
plants presented in BID Vol. I (see
Docket Item IV-B-12). The cost of
control for routine and non-
decomposition, -emergency-type releases
in a flare ranged from S70 to 31.890 per
Mg of VOC reduction for single process
lines and between $45 and S885 per Mg
for whole plants. These intermittent
releases are designed Jo keep the
process vessel in normal operating
conditions: -they are not releases that
occur because of abnormal operating
conditions (e.g^ fire or loss of power) or
because releases are necessary to
prevent equipment damage or personnel
safety hazardous because the operating
conditions can no longer be returned to
normal operating conditions.
Definition. While the Agency would
like to relate the decision on whether to
require control for all intermittent
releases in the same manner as has
been dene for continuous emissions.
that approach is not feasible (54 FR 903).
Therefore, the promulgated standard
continue* to require control of
appropriate intermittent releases by
defining the types of intermittent
releases that are exempt from the
standards. As noted earlier in this
response, the January 10.1989. Federal
Register notice defined too narrowly
those intermittent releases that could be
exempted from control by using the term
"decomposition." In the promulgated
standard, the definition of "emergency
vent stream" has been revised and is
used for exempting individual
intermittent releases from control
requirements. The definition exempts
intermittent streams in a very similar
way as the September 30.1987, Federal
Register notice. The final definition of
emergency vent stream covers those
intermittent vents that occur from
process equipment where normal
operating parameters are exceeded such
that the process equipment cannot be
returned to normal operating conditions
using the design features of the system
and venting must occur to avoid
equipment failure or adverse safety
personnel consequence. Releases of this
nature include emissions that occur
during a decomposition event, during
attempts to prevent decompositions, and
during reactor dumps to minimize the
ndverse consequences of a runaway
reaction (other than a decomposition). In
addition, the definition of
"decomposition emissions" has been
revised to include those emissions that
occur as .a result of attempts to prevent
decompositions.
Condensers
Comment: One commenter (1V-D-8)
stated that the use of refrigeration
condensers are not technically feasible
for polystyrene processes and do not
meet the criteria for standards of
performance .as stated in the BID:
"standards of performance must (1)
Realistically reflect best demonstrated
control practices: (2) adequately
consider the cost the nonair quality,
health and environmental impacts, .and
the energy requirement of such control;
(3) be applicable to existing sources that
are modified or reconstructed as well as
new installations: and (4) meet the
conditions of all variations of operating
conditions being considered anywhere
in the country."
The commenter wrote that the Agency
is correct in stating in the BID that
condensers are cost effective for
recovery of compounds with relatively
high boiling points like styrene and that
a refrigerated condenser is not feasible
when moisture is present in the stream
which might cause freezing in the
condenser. The commenter then pointed
out .that the latter holds true for
continuous polystyrene processes.
The commenter then gave a number of
reasons why freezing will occur. First
and most important, according to the
commenter. is the water in the vent The
commenter noted that the Agency
assumed that when plants switched
from steam ejectors to vacuum pumps.
the freezing problem associated with
water disappeared with the steam.
However, the commenter stated, there is
water entering with the raw materials
and with the air leakage into the system
(especially true in hot humid climates).
The commenter pointed out that most of
the water comes from the water content
of the styrene and the rubber used in the
manufacture of high impact polystyrene
(HIPS). Another potential problem"with
using a refrigerated condenser,
according to the commenter. is the
presence of additives in the process.
some of which have high freezing points.
One company reports freezing of the
primary condensers coming off the
devolatilizer when they ran the
condenser's glycol system at —2 to
-4'C. Thus, if certain additives are
present the freezing is more likely to
take place.
Response: After further investigation.
the Agency agrees that freezing may be
a problem at sub-zero temperatures.
Therefore, the Agency has reanalyzed
the regulatory alternatives for
polystyrene plants using-spared heat
exchangers with defrost capabilities and
a refrigeration system for sub-zero
applications. This Teanalysis is
presented in Docket Item IV-B-18.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-G.
IV-D-8) expressed concern over the
costs basis used to select refrigerated
condensers as the basis of the proposed
standards for polystyrene plants.
Commenter IV-D-8 stated that the
Agency did not adequately determme
the costs and cost-effectiveness
associated with using refrigerated
condensers in the polystyrene
continuous process. Commenter IV-D-G
stated the cost of the refrigeration
condenser system for the-model plant in
the BID appears to be totally unrealistic
and grossly underestimated and the cost
of the specified technology to achieve
the indicated reductions does not
appear to justify the additional control
above 0.12 kg/Mg of product. The
commenter pointed out the following
cost factors they felt might have been
overlooked:
1. Moisture content of the stream would
require drying-systems:
2. Poor heat transfer coefficients due to the
high nitrogen and noncondensible content of
the stream:
3. Explosion-proo/ requirements must bo
Class 1 division 2:
4. Refrigeration system would be non-
standard (probably propylene) due to the
temperature requirements:
5. Higher metallurgy (stainless steel)
required due to the low temperature
requirement: and
8. Coat for new process condenser and
associated piping appears not to have been
considered in •development of the proposal.
Existing chilled water-condensers arc nol
rated for this low temperature application
and refrigeration service. Therefore, new
process condensers would be required.
On the basis of these comments
regarding the cost and cost-effectiveness
of refrigerated condensers, as well as
the questionable viability of the
technology due to the presence of water.
Commenter IV-D-8 stated that EPA
must redetermine the best technology
system for polystyrene continuous
processes.
Response: The commenters have
brought up a number of points
concerning the use of and cost estimates
for refrigerated condensers on emission
streams from polystyrene plants using
continuous processes. For the response
to these comments, the reader is
referred to Docket Item IV-B-18. The
following summarizes the Agency's
response to the commenters concerns.
-------
51030 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
The Agency agrees that consideration
of subzero condenser applications
requires dealing with moisture level.
Based on conversations with a number
of vendors, the Agency has reevaluated
control below 32 T using a system
composed of two heat exchangers each
equipped with a defrost unit and a
refrigeration unit to service both heat
exchangers. This system now
incorporates stainless steel construction.
The system previously considered
noncondensibles and, thus, the Agency
fuels proper heat transfer coefficients
have been used. Vendor contacts
indicated that ethylene glycol-water
solutions and Freon 502 coolants would
suffice: non-standard refrigerants would
not be needed. In addition, the explosion
proof requirements, which refer to
electrical wiring requirements, have
been directly considered. Based on
these assumptions, the Agency has
recalculated the costs of the control
alternatives.
Commenter IV-D-a suggested that the
Agency establish a new baseline to
determine cost effectiveness before
determining the final rule. The Agency
provides for an uncontrolled emission
rate threshold level that protects against
non-cost effective control of facilities
referred to by the commenter. Therefore,
the Agency has retained the baseline as
presented in BID Vol. L
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-6)
stated that the uncontrolled emission
rate of 0.018 kg VOC/Mg of product for
continuous polystyrene plants needs to
be reconsidered to take into account the
presence of water in the material
recovery condenser vent stream. The
commenter stated further that it appears
inappropriate that the newest facilities
built with the latest devolatilizing
vacuum and refrigeration technologies
cannot meet this uncontrolled emission
level. The commenter suggested that this
value, if appropriate at all needs to be
in the 0.050 kg VOC/Mg product range.
Response: The uncontrolled emission
rate for the material recovery section
from polystyrene plants has been
recalculated based on the new data
concerning water in the material
recovery condenser vent stream. The
new uncontrolled threshold emission
rate has increased to 0.05 kg TOC/Mg
product This increase reflects the use of
a spared condenser system to bypass
the potential freezing problem of using
subfreezing temperatures in the
condenser.
The commenter refers to the
inappropriateness of the proposed
uncontrolled emission rate by referring
to the newest facilities with the latest
devolatizing vacuum and refrigeration
technologies not being able to meet that
level. The commenter appears to
presume a relationship between the
level of uncontrolled emissions from a
facility that installs the latest process
equipment and the level of emissions
that can be achieved when air pollution
control is sought. The Agency disagrees
with this apparent assumption. The
uncontrolled emissions from an
industrial facility in the absence of
environmental regulation is typically
determined by a different set of
economic and cost criteria than the
criteria used in setting environmental
standards. The lower level of emissions
required by the standards does not say
anything about the technical capabilities
of the latest equipment installed by
industry, but reflects the use of emission
control equipment that allows further
reduction in emissions. As noted above.
the Agency reevaluated the
appropriateness of the control technique
used and as a result of this reevaluation
has increased the uncontrolled emission
rate.
Polyfethylene terephthalate) Standards
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-12)
stated that the vapor streams from the
material recovery (methanol recovery)
section of PET processes both high and
low viscosity DMT are laden with water
vapor. The commenter pointed out that
the concentration of TOC emissions and
condenser temperature are regulated in
sections 60.562-l(c)(l) (i) and (ii) and
60.562-l(c)(4)(iv) of the September 30.
1987, Federal Register notice. According
to the commenter, if a refrigerated
condenser were used as the final
condenser in the material recovery
section, the vapor stream would have to
be dried before entering the condenser
or the condenser would freeze and plug.
The commenter stated that such a drier
for that large a flow and concentration
would be prohibitively expensive in
terms of capital and operating cost and
should be excluded.
Response: The Agency has
reevaluated the regulator alternatives
for the material recovery section from
PET/DMT processes to taken into
account potential freezing problems.
However, rather than using a drier on
the stream, the Agency used a lower
cost approach of analyzing the potential
emission reduction and cost using a
spared condenser system. This has
resulted in a revision to the standard for
this process section. Based on the
revised analysis, the final rule sets an
emission limit of 0.018 kg TOC/Mg
product for material recovery sections.
Alternatively, an owner or operator of
an affected facility may limit the outlet
temperature of the final condenser to
+3 *C (+37 T). At proposal, these
limits were 0.0027 kg TOC/Mg product
and -24 °C (-11 °F], respectively. In
addition, the uncontrolled threshold
emission rate increased to 0.12 kg TOC/
Mg product.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11)
stated that the limit of 0.04 kg TOC/Mg
product from esterification vessels for
high viscosity PET using multiple end
finishers (Section 60.562-l(c)(4)(iii) of
the September 30,1987, Federal Register
notice) appears to be in error and is not
supported by BID Vol. I. The commenter
stated that the appropriate limit should
be 0.15 kg TOC/Mg product.
Response: The Agency reviewed (he
information in BID Vol. I and the docket
concerning this comment. The sources
show inconsistent treatment of
estenfiers from high viscosity PET
plants using multiple end finishers. For
example. Chapter 8 states that baseline
control costs for these facilities were
estimated assuming reflux condensers
on the estenfiers, which are associated
with an emission rate of 0.04 kg TOC/
Mg of product. The commenter. who
uses a different type of condenser on
their esterfiers, has stated that they
would expect their condenser to be as
efficient as reflux condensers. While a
previous estimate based on sampling
conducted in 1978 at the-commenter s
facility showed an estimated emission
rate of 0.15 kg TOC/Mg product, a more
recent test conducted by the commenter
shows that the controlled emissions
from the esterifiers are below 0.04 kg
TOC/Mg product. In developing the
baseline control costs, the Agency
incorporated reflux condensers as
baseline control. Unfortunately, this was
not shown in Chapter 6, where the
contradictory, and erroneous, statement
that distillation columns with an
emission rate of 0.15 kg TOC/Mg
product are shown. For new plants, it
was the Agency's judgment that reflux
condensers represented best available
technology and should serve as baseline
for new. grass roots plants. As noted
above, the more recent test by the
commenter shows that their condensers
are achieving equivalent levels of
control. The Agency also conducted a
new analysis specifically estimating the
cost of controlling the commenter's 0.15
kg TOC/Mg product stream to 0.04 kg
TOC/Mg product (see Docket Item IV-
B-20). This analysis showed the cost of
control to be reasonable. Thus, while the
commenter is correct in pointing out
discrepancies in the BID for the
proposed standards, the final rule
retains the proposed standard of 0.04 kg
TOC/Mg product.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-8.
IV-D-13) stated that while the control
-------
federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations 51031
technology exists to achieve final
condenser outlet temperatures of -24
*C during steady state operation of a
polyethylene terephthalate) plant, there
are routine stages of the operation of a
plant which make this temperature
unachievable. The commenters pointed
out that the composition of the vent
stream during startup, shutdown, and
process upsets varies to the point that
maintaining an outlet temperature of
-24 °C would lead to freeze ups and
further process upsets. The water
content, polymer carryover and other
contaminants in the stream during
startup or shutdown, the commenter
continued, will affect the temperature at
which the condenser outlet can be
operated without freezing during this
portion of the processing. Therefore, the
commenters stated, if a gas temperature
is specified in the standard and is
included as a permit parameter, there
will be times when the process must
perforce violate the permit and adequate
recognition that the standards do not
apply during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction conditions must be given.
The commenters then suggested that
the regulatory language be changed to
reflect that if refrigerated condensers
are used for control, then when the
process runs at steady state the outlet
gas temperature should be -24 *C.
Response: Periods of. startup.
shutdown, and malfunction are not
considered to be in violation if they
exceed the expressed emission limits, as
provided for in the General Provisions.
section 60.8(c):
"" * * nor shall emissions in excess of the
level of the applicable emission limit during
periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction be considered a violation of the
applicable emission limit unless otherwise
specified in the applicable standard."
Since the proposed standards do not
specify otherwise, the General Provision
section was assumed to be prevailing.
However, the alternative temperature
standard does not necessarily fall within
the definition of "emission limit" as
used in § 60.8(c). The Agency intends
the same treatment to be accorded the
alternative temperature standard as for
a true emission limit. Owners and
operators are still required to maintain
and operate any affected facility
including associated air pollution
control equipment in a manner
consistent with good air pollution
control practice for minimizing
emissions, to the extent practicable, at
all times including periods of startup.
shutdown, and malfunction (General
Provisions. § 60.11(d)). Therefore, the
promulgated standard includes the
commenter's suggestion.
Modification / Reconstruction
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-47)
referred to 54 FR 893 in which is stated:
"Under the new approach, any existing
process section that is modified or
reconstructed becomes an affected
facility subject to the proposed
standards. Similarly, any newly
constructed process section at an
existing plant or a new plant would be
an affected facility ' * '."The
commenter then stated that the impact
of these statements is unclear where an
existing process section that is modified
or reconstructed becomes an affected
facility subject to the proposed
standards, yet that modification or
reconstruction results in increased
emissions only in another section. The
commenter asked how the standards are
to be applied in this situation.
Response: Modification or
reconstruction to a process section only
affects that process section regardless of
the effect on emissions in other process
sections. A process section is
"modified" if a physical change occurs
to the facility or there is an operational •
change to the facility either of which
results in an in increase in the emission
rate. In the example provided by the
commenter, the modified process section
would not become an affected facility
because there is no increase in
emissions from that process section.
Assuming the other process section is
not modified, as defined, then it is not
considered to be an affected facility
because there is no increase in
emissions from that process section.
Assuming the other process section is
not modified, as defined, then it is not
considered to be an affected facility
even though there is an increase in
emissions.
A process section is "reconstructed" if
the replacement of components in the
existing facility occurs so that the fixed
capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital
cost that would be required to construct
a comparable entirely new process
section and it is technologically and
economically feasible to meet the
applicable standards. The definition of
reconstruction does not depend on an
increase in emissions. Thus, in the
example provided by the commenter. if
the first process section is reconstructed.
then it becomes an affected facility
subject to the standards regardless of
the fact there has been no increase in
emissions. (Note: This is also true even
if a decrease in emissions occurs.) As
before, if the process section in which
emissions do increase does not undergo
replacement of components so as to
constitute a reconstruction, then that
process section is not an affected
facility and is not subject to the
standards.
Miscellaneous
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-
09, IV-D-44. IV-D-50) expressed
concern over the definition of
"concurrent" in the January 10.1989.
Federal Register notice and the concept
of concurrently constructed, modified,
and reconstructed affected facilities.
Commenter IV-D-39 suggested that the
word "concurrent" be deleted. This
commenter stated that its purpose is
unclear and that it appears to require
that modifications to existing facilities
occurring within two years of each other
would be treated as new facilities with
the stricter low VOC concentration
requirements being applied.
Commenter IV-D-44 suggested that
the two-year time frame in the definition
of "concurrent" be replaced with a six-
month period. This commenter stated
that the definition of concurrent as
proposed could impose retroactive
additional control measures and costs to
projects already completed or near
completion. Commenter IV-D-44
believes that no additional requirements
should ever be imposed on projects
already completed or which have
initiated construction. This commenter
illustrated their concern-by stating that
major projects could be vulnerable for
additional control requirements and
incurred costs up to five years (three
years from commencement to
completion plus two-year concurrent
period) from date of commencement.
Commenter IV-D-44 stated that this
was "totally unreasonable and not cost
effective." The commenter believes that
all control decisions for concurrent
projects should be made during their
common planning/design phase and that
projects should not be considered
concurrent unless they have a common
planning time frame. According to this
commenter. two years is too long a time
frame for the definition of concurrent
and is longer than most planning cycles.
Commenter IV-D-44 also stated that
the proposed use of concurrent does not
appear to exempt projects under
construction, modification, or
reconstruction prior to January 10.1989.
from additional control requirements.
The commenter recommended that
projects started prior to January 10.
1989. be excluded from being considered
concurrent with other projects begun
after January 10.1989.
Commenter IV-D-50 stated that the
wording of the definition of concurrent
is confusing (54 FR 895). According to
this commenter. the definition as stated
-------
51032
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December n. 1990 / Rules Regulations
now would lead to the following
scenario: when a plant commences a
project "B" within two years of the
commencement of a previous project
"A" at the same plant, and it
commences a project "C" within two
years of the commencement of project
"B," then "B" can be concurrent with
"A" and "C" can be concurrent with "B"
while "C" may nbt be concurrent with
"A". Commenter 1V-D-50 then stated
that this situation could foreseeably go
on for years and makes the completion
date of each successive project
irrelevant. Commenter IV-D-50 .
recommended that the EPA eliminate
the concept of concurrent control, but
that if the EPA feels this definition is
absolutely necessary, suggested as an
alternative to the statement in the
revised proposal (54 FR 895) the
following language:
construction, modification, or
reconstruction within a process unit
(replacing, "of affected facilities") which lias
commenced in the two year penod prior to
the commencement date of the construction.
modification, or reconstruction of an affected
facility."
Response: Under the generic approach
far determining which process emission
streams are to be controlled from
polypropylene and polyethylene
Ijcilities, the Agency proposed in the
January 10.1989. Federal Register notice
that emissions from all concurrently
constructed, modified, and
reconstructed affected facilities be
combined (according to the procedures
outlined in that notice) for purposes of
determining which emission streams
would be controlled. When a new plant
is built all of the process sections are
(obviously) concurrent, and the generic
approach requires combining emission
streams in the same weight percent
range across ail process sections. This
procedure formed the basis for the
development of the calculated threshold
emission levels proposed in the January
70.1988, Federal Register notice.
The Agency extended this concept of
concurrent construction to modified and
leconstracted affected facilities. If two
process sections are modified at the
same time, the Agency knows of no
reason not to combine streams across
the two process sections for control
determinations. In fact the generic
approach is specifically designed to
reach more reasonable control/no
control determinations when this is
done than when each process section is
considered individually. Further, the
Agency believes that reasonable control
decisions can be made even for affected
facilities that are not "concurrent." as
defined in the January 10.1989. Federal
Register notice.
The Agency has decided that the term
"concurrent" is unnecessary to
implement the generic approach and has
eliminated it from the final rule.
I lowever. the Agency has replaced it
with a different and more expansive
procedure. This new procedure requires
uncontrolled emission streams from an
nffected facility to be examined for
pollutant central whenever a process
section at the plant site is constructed,
modified, or reconstructed regardless of
the time interval between the
commencement or completion dates of
the affected facilities. Once an emission
stream is controlled as a result of these
standards, it is never again considered
for determining the control of other
emission streams.
In implementing this new procedure.
the Agency disagrees with the
commenters that it is unreasonable to
require control of emissions from an
affected facility that has begun
operation (i.e.. after it has been
completed). The generic approach was
designed to identify that level of annual
emissions for a given weight percent of
VOC in a single or combined emission
stream above which control is deemed
to be reasonable, regardless of the
number of emission streams, the period
of time when they became subject to the
standards, or the planning phases or
periods at a plant site. In addition, the
Agency disagrees that there is a need to
distinguish between those process
sections that became affected facilities
on or before January 10.1989. and those
that became affected facilities after
January 10.1989. Reasonable control
determinations can be made regardless
of an affected facility's applicability
date.
To illustrate how this new procedure
works, the following example is
provided.
Example: At a polypropylene plant. Process
Section A is reconstructed. There are three
continuous emission streams (1.2. and 3). one
in each of the three weight percent ranges.
Stream 3. which is in the 20 to 100 weight
percent VOC range, has emissions greater
than the CTE level and. thus, control is
required. Emissions from Streams 1 and 2 are
below their respective CTTs and. thus, no
control fs required. Process Section B is
modified, and has two emission streams. 4
and 5. Emission Stream 4 is in the same
weight percent range as Emission Stream 1.
and Emission Stream 5 is in the same weight
percent range as Emission Stream 2. These
emission streams would now be combined (4
with 1 and 5 with 2) to determine whether
emissions in each weight percent range arc
greater than their respective CTTs. Suppose
the total emissions from Emission Streams 5
and 2 are greater than the CTE level for their
weight percent. These two streams would
now be controlled. Suppose the other two
streams (4 and l| remain uncontrolled (i.e_
their total annual emissions are less man tn«
CTE level for their weight percent.
Finally, Process Section C is constructed
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
51033
single stream flare gas flow
measurements being notoriously
difficult to measure.
One commenter (IV-D-6) stated that
technical problems exist for retrofit of
modified facilities where emergency
vent systems are integrated with normal
process vent streams, because the range.
of flow rates makes accurate
measurement of lower flows impossible
without causing excessive restrictions to
emergency ventings.
Commenter (IV-D-8) suggested that
paragraphs 60.563(a)(2), (b)(2). and (c)(2)
of the September 30.1987, Federal
Register notice, which require the
installation of a flow indicator to
provide a record of the vent stream flow
to the incinerator or flare, be deleted.
All four commenters felt that
engineering estimates and design
calculations of the vent flows should be
adequate to ascertain compliance with
flare flow allowable ranges.
One commenter (IV-D-5)
recommended that a requirement for an
engineering piping report be substituted
for the flow instrument requirements for
flares. This commenter believes that an
engineering report describing the piping
arrangement for the vent streams would
provide assurance that these streams
will be continuously flared. Such a
report the commenter said, would
achieve the same objective as the flow
instrument requirement by showing that
the vent streams are "hard wired" (no
physical possibility of an atmospheric
release prior to the flare) without the
burden of installing, operating, and
maintaining a large number of flow
recorders.
Response: The EPA considers it very
important to ensure that vent streams
are continuously vented to the flare (or
other control device). The primary intent
of the flow monitoring requirement was
to provide a means for indicating when
vent streams were bypassing the flare or
other control device. In the September
30,1987. Federal Register notice, flow
indicators were proposed. Flow
indicators envisioned by the Agency
would simply provide an indication of
flow/no flow, and need not provide
quantitative estimates of flow rates. The
Agency has reevaluated the use of flow
indicators as proposed and in light of
the comments received. This
reevaluation has led the Agency to the
following conclusions.
1. Flow meters, which provide quantitative
estimates for flow rates, could be one way to
ensure emissions are vented lo a control
device. However, ai pointed out by the
commenters. there may be technical
problems and IPSS expensive ways to achieve
the same goal.
2. Flow indicators located on the vent pipe
between the emission source and the control
device by themselves may be insufficient to
meet the intent (even though this was what
was proposed).
3. Engineering reports that show an
emission stream is "hard piped" to a control
device is a less expensive method than flow
meters to ensure the entire flow will be
vented to the control device. Other piping
arrangements can be used, but car seals on
valves or flow indicators located immediately
downstream of each valve that could divert a
portion of the flow to the atmosphere, either
directly or indirectly, become necessary.
Considering the above conclusions.
the Agency is now requiring an
engineering report that describes the
piping arrangement for venting the
affected emission streams to the control
device. If any valves are present in the
line between the source and the control
device, the rule requires them to be car-
sealed opened. In addition, all valves
that allow emissions to bypass the
control device are required to be car-
sealed closed. The monitoring
requirements have been revised now
that this engineering report is required.
An owner or operator may elect to
follow one of two methods for
monitoring the vent system. One method
would require monthly inspection of the
valves to inspect the car seals, the
reporting and recording of any time the
car seals are broken, and the recording
and reporting of any time the valve
position has changed. The other method
would require the installation of a flow
indicator, which gives an indication of
flow/no flow, at the closest downstream
point of each valve that is required to be
car-sealed closed. The owner or
operator is to record all periods of flow
(which indicates a portion of the
emission stream is bypassing the control
device) and report such periods of flow.
Comment: The commenters (IV-D-6.
IV-D-8) pointed out that the preamble
clearly states that thermocouples is the
only acceptable monitor, while the
standard allows for a thermocouple or
similar device. The commenters
requested that this confusion be
eliminated from the rule.
Four commenters (IV-D-6. IV-D-7,
IV-D-a. IV-D-49) requested that a
provision for any other equivalent
devices capable of detecting a flame be
allowed with the regulations (§§ 60.563
(b)(l) and (c)(l) of the September 30.
1987. Federal Register notice). One
commenter (IV-D-8) suggested that
visual inspection combined with an
assessment of the reliability of the fuel
supply to the pilot be allowed as an
equivalent pilot flame detection system.
The commenters stated that the final
rule should allow individual plants to
select alternate flame sensors as the
point of the regulation should be to
require a pilot detection system (i.e..
thermocouples, flame ionization
detectors and remote infrared scanners)
capable of detecting a flame.
Response: The preamble for the
proposed rule should not have stated sn
distinctly that thermocouples were the
only acceptable monitor. Other similar
devices are acceptable provided they
provide the necessary recordkeeping
requirements.
The presence cf a flame is obviously
critical to the operation of a flare as a
control device. The intent of the flare
monitoring regulation is to require a
reliable monitoring device on the fla -e
that will indicate there is no flame
present and. thus, when the flare is riot
operating; or in the case of intermittent
emissions, not in a ready state to control
emissions. For flares controlling
continuous emissions, monitoring of the
flare flame or pilot light flames is
appropriate to ensure the vent stream is
being destroyed. For flares controlling
intermittent emissions, a flare flame will
not always be present. Thus, for these
flares, it is important to monitor the piloi
light flames.
Thermocouples are generally accepted
as the most reliable means to monitor
the presence of a pilot flame. For flares
controlling intermittent emissions alone.
it is important to ensure that the piloi
lights are lit (i.e.. have a flame present).
Thus, the standards require such flares
to monitor the pilot light flames using a
thermocouple or equivalent monitoring
device. For flares controlling both
intermittent and continuous emissions
or continuous emissions alone. EPA has
decided that the use of certain optical
devices is also acceptable to indicate
the presence of a flame (either the flare
flame or pilot light flames). Ultra-violet
or infrared beam sensors may be used in
lieu of thermocouples for these flares.
These devices offer an advantage over
thermocouples because they may be
installed remote from the flare tip
thereby allowing maintenance to be
done without shutting down the flare. It
is important that these optical devices
be installed properly to minimize the
effects of solar radiance. Although these
devices may have difficultly in
distinguishing the pilot flame from the
main flame, the detection of a flame
fulfills the intent of the regulation for
flares used to control both continuou
and intermittent emissions or
continuous emissions alone.
The detection of flame presence by
visual means or by remote video cameiv
is not a suitable method of monitoring. '
a flame is operating smokelessly. it c;u
-------
Ł2034 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 233 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
be difficult to determine if a flame is
present
Flame ionization detectors are not
considered as reliable as other
monitoring technologies. The experience
of one flare manufacturer (see Docket
Item IV-D-54) showed major problems
with the accumulation of moisture on
the flame rod. which tended to ground
the flame rod and then lock up the
system. Further, this manufacturer found
that the formation of small amounts of
carbon in the pilot flame and its
accumulation around the base of the
flame rod also tended to "ground out"
the flame red and lock up the system.
The EPA is willing to take info
consideration any operating records or
test data for alternative monitoring
devices.
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-6.
IV-D-7. IV-D-S. IV-D-49) stated that
thermocouples are known to be
unreliable when placed in the severe
operating environment at the top of a
flare and that the flare tip maintenance
period can typically be much longer
than the service period for a
thermocouple. The commenters then
asked what needs to be done when a
pilot flame thermocouple bums out. Is
the flare to be shut down prior to the
regular maintenance to replace the pilot
thermocouple? The commenters pointed
out that since flares are emergency relief
devices, taking a flare out of service can
not usually be done without taking the
entire process which the flare services
out of services and that more emissions
would undoubtedly result from
premature flare maintenance related to
thermocouple burnout Commenter IV-
D-49 also stated that thermocouples can
Le difficult to replace.
Response: Recent improvements in
thermocouple installation technology
have extended the operating life of
thermocouples in flare monitoring
service. If a thermocouple is sheathed
within a thermowell. the thermocouple
ii protected from the severe flame
environment and the thermocouple
operating life can be extended to
approximately the same length of time
aa the flare tip maintenance period.
Installing a thermocouple with
thermoweil will reduce significantly the
number of times an operator must
decide whether to shut down upon
thermocouple failure.
Any breakdown or malfunction of the
thermocouple should be repaired as
soon as practicable as stated in
9 61.14(b) of the General Provisions. The
operator is expected to determine the
best time to shut the flare down after
considering how to minimize emissions
both for safety and environmental
reasons.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-44,
IV-D-50) stated that language in the
January 10.1989. Federal Register notice
appears to require monitoring of existing
continuous emission streams prior to
any modifications or reconstructions.
The commenters believe that a
monitoring requirement would raise the
following concerns cr questions:
• Determination of emissions prior to
modification by sampling is not appropriate
because emissions may vary with product
runs, and the worse case product may not be
available for monitoring within a reasonable
time. These emissions can be calculated with
reasonable accuracy. (IV-D-44)
• What is the economic justification/basis
for requiring testing of existing streams as
opposed to calculating? (IV-D-H. iV-D-50)
• What test method, duration, frequency
and monitoring are contemplated? (IV-D-50)
• For processes that make a wide vanety
of products, what product line emissions
(different hydrocarbon constituents, product
densities, etc.) should be measured? (IV-D-
50)
• What is the environmental benefit of
reuquinng testing of existing streams? (IV-D-
50)
The commenters pointed out that
Table 4 "Procedure for Determining
Control and Applicable Standard for
Continuous Emission Streams from
Modified or Reconstructed
Polypropylene and Polyethylene
Affected Facilities" [Ref: 54 FR 908)
specifies in Step 3 that calculations of
VOC concentration in the applicable
weight percent range should be made
before and after any modification or
reconstruction. The commenters
requested clarification of this issue
(monitoring vs. calculation) and
recommended engineering calculations
as specified in Table 4 be used in the
procedural step in determining control
requirements of emissions before and
after any modification or reconstruction.
The word "measure" on page 54 FR 895
should be changed to "calculate."
according to Commenter IV-D-44.
Response: The language in the
preamble to the January 10.1989.
Federal Register notice did not intend to
imply that monitoring of existing
continuous emissions was being
required, although the language was not
cs precise as it should have been. In that
notice, the Agency intended that
measurements rather than calculations
be used to obtain the VOC
concentrations of each applicable VOC
stream. Measurement of the applicable
stream would occur after a modification
or reconstruction determination has
been made by the appropriate
enforcement agency, but before any
actual changes have been undertaken.
This clarification narrows the language
in the preamble from "any changes to an
existing process section that could
conceivably be a modification or
reconstruction" to only those that are
determined to be modification cr
reconstruction.
In the final rule, the requirement to
measure the VOC concentration or the
annual emission rate rather than
calculate these values is applied to oniy
those individual streams that an owner
or operator seek to exempt from control
through either the VOC weight percent
exemption or the low annual emissions
exemption. As provided in the General
Provisions, if an owner or operator
believes that an alternative procedure is
an accurate as a measurement then the
owner or operator may still petition the
Administrator for approval.
While the Agency would prefer actual
test data, the final rule allows an owner
or operator to submit calculations
calculating the weight percent and
annual emissions of each nonexempt
vent stream in lieu of actual test data.
provided such calculations can be
demonstrated to be sufficiently accurate
as to preclude the necessity of a test.
In testing or calculating the weight
percent and annual emissions of a vent
stream, an owner or operator is required
to evaluate the stream under conditions
representative of normal operation. This
may require an owner or operator to
make assumptions or estimates of how
the affected facility will be operated or
how emission streams will vary during
production of various products. The
period during which testing of a stream
occurs, thus, need not be a "worst case"
product, but preferably a representative
product. Where affected faculties are
used to produce a wide vanety of
products, then an owner or operator
would calculate (or measure) the
emission streams that would occur
during the course of a year fnr each of
the products. The resulting data would
be combined to identify composite
streams and their weighted average
VOC concentrations and total annual
emissions. Each composite stream's
VOC concentration would then be used
to calculate the threshold emission rate
and a control/no control determination
would be made by. comparing the
calculated (or measured) annual
emissions with the threshold emission
rate.
Where an owner or operator tests an
emission stream, the final rule requires
the use of Test Method 18 to determine
the VOC concentation and Test Method
2, 2A. 2C or 2D. as appropriate, to
determine the volumetric flow rate. Each
test shall consist of three 1-hour runs in
which either an integrated sample or
four grab samples shall be taken.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Resulatior.s
51033
in determining whether a test or
calculation is to be required, the Agency
considers a number of factors such as
the use of the information, the relative
cost of conducting the tests, and the
availability of alternative procedures.
Because the individual stream
exemptions allow an individual stream
to be exempt from control under this
NSPS. the Agency believes this decision
needs to be made based on test data.
(Note: If the annual emissions become
1.6 Mg/yr or greater (if using the annual
emissions exemption) or the VOC
concentration becomes 0.10 weight
percent or higher (if using the VOC
concentration exemption) at a later date.
then the individual stream is no longer
exempt from the standards.) For
nonexempt streams, a no control
decision may change to a control
decision as more facilities at a plant arn
constructed, modified, or reconstructed.
Thus, while test data are preferable for
determining the VOC weight percent
concentrations, the Agency has decided
'.hat calculations showing the VOC
concentrations can be an acceptable
alternative to testing.* and at greatly
reduced costs.
VIII. Administrative
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this ruiemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file, since material is added
throughout the rulemaking development.
The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and
industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the rulemaking
process. Along with the statement of
basis and purpose of the proposed and
promulgated standards and EPA
responses to significant comments, the
contents of the docket, except for
interagency review materials, will serve
as the record in case of judicial review
(section 307(d)(7)(A)).
The effective date of this regulation is
December 11.1991. Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act provides that standards of
performance or revisions thereof
become effective upon promulgation and
apply to certain affected facilities of
which the construction or modification
was commented after the date of
proposal. September 30.1987. and for
other affected facilities, after January 10.
1989.
As prescribed in section 111. the
promulgation of these standards was
preceded by the Administrator's
determination (40 CFR 60.16. 44 PR
49222. dated August 21.1979) that
polypropylene, polyethylene.
polystyrene, and polyester resin plants
contribute significantly to air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. In
accordances with Section 117 of the Act.
publication of these promulgated
standards was preceded by consultation
with appropriate advisory committees.
independent experts, and Federal
departments and agencies.
This regulation will be reviewed 4
years from the date of promulgation as
required by the Clean Air Act. This
review will include an assessment of
such factors as the need for integration
with other programs, the existence of
alternative methods, enforceability.
improvements in emission control
technology, and reporting requirements.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
economic impact assessment for any
new source standard of performance
promulgated under section lll(b) of the
Act. An economic impact assessment
was prepared for this regulation and for
other regulatory alternatives. All
aspects of the assessment were
considered in the formulation of the
standards to ensure that cost was
carefully considered in determining the
best demonstrated technology. The
economic impact assessment is included
in the BID for the proposed standards.
Information collection requirements
associated with this regulation (those
included in 40 CFR part 60. subpart A
and subpart DDD) have been approved
by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have been
assigned OMB control number (2000-
0145 J.
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA is
required to judge whether a regulation js
a "major rule" and therefore subject to
the requirements of a regulatory impact
analysis (RIA). The Agency has
determined that this regulation would
result in none of the adverse economic
effects set forth in Section 1 of the Order
as grounds for finding a regulation to be
a "major rule." The Agency has.
therefore, concluded that this regulation
is not a "major rule" under Executive
Order 12291.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
requires the identification of potentially
adverse impacts of Federal regulations
upon small business entities. The Act
specifically requires the completion of a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those
instances where small business impacts
are possible. Because these standards
impose no adverse economic impacts, a
Regulatory Flexibility has not been
conducted.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b). I hereby certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control. Incorporation by
reference. Intergovernmental relations,
Plastic materials, synthetic resins, and
nonvulcanizable elastomers (SIC 2821).
and Reporting and recorcikeeping
requirements.
Dated: November 7. 1990.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
PART 60—{AMENDED]
40 CFR part 60 is amended as follows-
1. The authority citation for pnrt fio
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 101. 111. 114.116. 3C1.
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401.
7411. 7414. 741G. 7C01.)
2. Uy adding a new subpsrt DDD tr>
read as follows:
Subpart ODD—Standards of Performance
for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Emissions from the Polymer Manufacturing
Industry
S.!C.
GO.SfiO Applicability and designation or
affected facilities. '
00.561 Definitions.
60.582-1 Standards: Process emissions.
60.562-2 Standards: Equipment leaks of
VOC.
(JO.SO.'l Moniionnj requirements.
60.564 Test metnocis and procedures
60.5:">5 Reporting and recordkocpms
requirements.
K0.5G6 Delegation of duthonty.
Subpart ODD—Standards of Performance
for Volatile Organic Comoound (VOC)
Emission* from the Polymer Manufacturing
Industry
§ 60.560 Applicability and designation of
affected facilities.
(a) Affected facilities. The provisions
of this subpart apply to affected
facilities involved in the manufacture of
polypropylene, polyethylene,
polystyrene, or poly (ethylene
terephthalate) as defined in § 60.561 of
this subpart. The affected facilities
designated below for polypropylene and
polyethylene are inclusive of all
equipment used in the manufacture of
these polymers, beginning with raw
materials preparation and ending with
product storage, and cover all emissions
emanating from such equipment.
(1) For process emissions from any
polypropylene and polyethylene
manufacturing process that uses a
continuous process, the affected
-------
51036
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
facilities are each of the following
process sections: each raw materials
preparation section, each
polymerization reaction section, each
material recovery section, each product
finishing section, and each product
storage section. These process sections
are affected facilities for process
emissions that are emitted continuously
and for process emissions that are
emitted intermittently.
[2] For process emissions from
polystyrene manufacturing processes
that use a continuous process, the
affected facilities are each material
recovery section. These process sections
are affected facilities for only those
process emissions that are emitted
continuously.
(3) For process emissions from
poly(ethylene terephthalate)
manufacturing processes that use a
continuous process, the affected
facilities are each polymerization
reaction section. If the process uses
dimethyl terephthalate. then each
material recovery section is also an
affected facility. If the process uses
terephthalic acid, then each raw
materials preparation section is also an
affected facility. These process sections
are affected facilities for only those
process emissions that are emitted
continuously.
(4) For VOC emissions from
equipment leaks from polypropylene.
polyethylene, and polystyrene (including
expandable polystyrene) manufacturing
processes, the affected facilities are
each group of fugitive emissions
equipment (as defined in § 60.561)
within any process unit (as defined in
§ 60.561). This subpart does not apply to
VOC emissions from equipment leaks
from polyethylene terephthalate)
manufacturing processes.
(i) Affected facilities with a design
capacity to produce less than 1.000 Mg/
yr shall be exempt from § 60.562-2.
(ii) Addition or replacement of
equipment for the purposes of
improvement which is accomplished
without a capital expenditure shall not
by itself be considered a modification
under § 60.562-2.
(b) Applicability dates. The
applicability date identifies when an
affected facility becomes subject to a
standard. Usually, a standard has a
single applicability date. However, some
polypropylene and polyethylene
affected facilities have a September 30,
1987, applicability date and others have
a January 10.1989. applicability date.
The following paragraphs identify the
applicability dates for all affected
facilities subject to this subpart.
(1) Polypropylene and polyethylene.
Each process section in a polypropylene
or polyethylene production process is -A
potential affected facility for both
continuous and intermittent emissions.
The applicability date depends on when
the process section was constructed.
modified, or reconstructed and. in some
instances, on the type of production
process.
(i) The applicability date for any
polypropylene or polyethylene affected
facility that is constructed, modified, or
reconstructed after January 10.1989.
regardless of the type of production
process being used, is January 10.1909.
(ii) Only some polypropylene or
polyethylene process sections that are
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
on or before January 10,1989. but after
September 30,1987, are affected
facilities. These process sections (and
the type of emissions to be controlled)
are identified by an "x" in Table 1. The
applicability date for the process
sections (and the emissions to be
controlled) that are identified by an "x"
in Table 1 is September 30.1987. Since
the affected facilities that have a
September 30.1987. applicability date
are determined by the type of
production process (e.g., liquid phase.
gas phase), each owner or operator snail
identify the particular production
process that applies'to his or her
particular process. •
TABLE 1.—POLYPROPYLENE AND POLYETHYLENE AFFECTED FACILITIES WITH SEPTEMBER 30,1987, APPLICABILITY DATE
DMauatA*
Polypropylene
Potypropyton.
Low Density Polyethylene
Low Density Polyethylene...
High Density Polyethylene
Liquid phase
Gas Phase
Low Pressure „«
Liquid Phase Slurry....
Liquid Phase Solution
Material Recovery
Polymerization Reaction
Product Finishing
Product Storage „ ..
Polymerization Reaction................™.......
MatenaJ Recovery... _
Product Finishing
Polymerization Reaction..—
M«enat Recovery
Product FintsTMno ....................... i
Product Storage. „
Material Recovery
Product Finishing
Product Storage .
Polymanzation Reaction
Material Recovery
Product Finishing . „..._.
Product Storage
Raw Materials Preparation
Product Fin^rung Eii
Product Storage
Emissions
i Continuous j intermittent
, X
X , X
x
— X
x
1
x
1 •;
_ ! x
x x
X —
jTzr "1"I7 —
X _
X x
X X
—
aooKcaoOitv date.
acuity lor continuous or intermittent emissions or both, as shown, which has a September 30. 1987.
affected facility tor continoua or intermittent emissions or both, as shown, rf the process section >s
" —' January 10, 1989. These process sections a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
(2) Polystyrene. The applicability date
for each polystyrene affected facility is
September 30. 1987.
(3) Po/yfetfjyJene terephthalate). The
applicability date for each polyethylene
t»rephthalate) affected facility is
September 30. 1987.
(c) Any facility under paragraph (a) of
this section that commences
construction, modification, or
reconstruction after its applicability
date as identified under paragraph (b) of
this section is subject to the
requirements of this subpart. except as
provided in paragraphs (d) through (f) of
this section.
(d) Any polypropylene or
polyethylene affected facility with a
September 30. 1987. applicability date
that commenced construction.
modification, or reconstruction after
September 30. 1987, and on or before
January 10. 1989. with an uncontrolled
emission rate (as defined in footnote a
to Table 2) at or below those identified
in Table 2 is not subject to the
requirements of § 60.562-1 unless and
until its uncontrolled emission rate
exceeds that rate listed for it in Table 2
or it is modified or reconstructed after
January 10. 1989. At such time, such
facility becomes subject to | 60.562-1
and the procedures identified in
§ 60.562-l(a) shall be used, to determine
the control of emissions from the
facility.
TASIE 2.— MAXIMUM UNCONTROLLED
THRESHOLD EMISSION RATES •
! ! Uncontrolled
Production ! emission
process ' Process section • rate, kg
product
Polypropylene. Raw Materials i o 15 '
howd phase I Preparation. :
fXOCMS. i '
Reaction
i Material 0.19*
! Recovery.
j Product Finishing 157*
Polypropylene, I Porymenzauuii 0.12'
gnphasa i Reaction. ,
process.
I Material io.02*
i Recovery. !
Low Density I Raw Materials 041'
Polywtwtena. Preparation.
r*gn pressure j
prOCeSS. 1
nVMMIUII.
i Material n
Recovery.
Product Finishing.... (•)
1 Product Storage .J (•>
TABLE 2.— MAXIMUM UNCONTROLLED
THRESHOLD EMISSION RATES'— Con-
tinued
'• i Uncontrolled
Production „ emission
process Process section rate, kg '
' ' TOC/mg
product
Low Density | Raw Materials 0 05 '
Polvetnytene. • Preparation
i high pressure • •
process.
1 Polymerization 0.03'
Reaction
1 Production 0.01 *
Finishing.
High Density i Raw Materials 0.25 '
Polyethylene. Preparation
liquid phase !
slurry process. :
i Material ! 0 1 1 •
i Recovery
i Product Finishing ..i 0.41 *
High Density ! Raw Materials ' 0.24 '
Poivetnylene. ! Preparation.
liqux) phase •
solution
process.
' Potvmenzauon o 16 '
Reaction.
i Material 1.68'
i Recovery.
High Density Raw Materials 0.05 '
Polyethylene. Preparation. I
gas phase ;
process i
i Polymerization j 0.03 •
• Reaction. j
i Product Finishing .j o.oi •
Polystyrene. i Material 0.05 * "
continuous Recovery
process.
Pttytethylene Material 0.12 ••«
tereomnatalei. , Recovery.
dimethyl
terephmalate :
process. • i
I Polymerization 1 ,ao *• '• '
i Reaction.
Poly Reaction.
! 3.92 «••••-
• "Uncontrolled emission raw" refers to the emis-
sion rate ot a vent stream that vents directly to me
atmosphere and to the emission rate ot a vent
stream to me almost* lere that would occur m the
aOMnce of any add-on control devices but after any
material recovery devices that constitute pan of the
normal material recovery operations n a process
line where potential emissions are recovered tor
recycle) or resale.
•Envision rate applies to continuous emissions
only.
• Emmsion rate applies to tntermrnent emissions
only.
•Total emotion rate for non-emergency mtermit-
tentenwsions from raw materials preparation, pc-
lymafawon reaction materiel ivuivwy. product fm-
• See footnote d.
/Emmon rate applies to both continuous and
tntaumltent emissions.
• Emission rate appues to non-emergency intermit-
tent emissions only.
51037
Apolies to modified or reconstructed attectec
i facilities only.
I ' Includes emissions from the cooling water tower
1 Aort.es to a process line prcoucmg low viscosity
polylelnyiene tereomnalate).
"Applies to a orocess line oroductng high viscosity
poMetnytene terepnathlatel.
I ' See footnote m.
"Applies to the sum of emissions to the atmos-
phere from me potymenzation reaction section (in-
cluding emissions from the cooling water toweri ana
tne raw materials preparation section (i e the esien-
fiersl
(e)(l) Modified or reconstructed
affected facilities at polystyrene and
polyfethyiene terephthalate) plants with
uncontrolled emission rates at or below
those identified in Table 2 are exempl
from the requirements of § 60.562-1
unless and until its uncontrolled
emission rate exceeds that rate listed for
it in Table 2. This exemption does not
apply to new polystyrene or
polyjethylene terephthalate) affected
facilities.
(2) Emissions from modified or
reconstructed affected facilities that arc
controlled by an existing control device
and that have uncontrolled emission
rates greater than the uncontrolled
threshold emission rates identified in
Table 2 are exempt from the
requirements of § 60.561 unless and until
the existing control device is modified.
reconstructed, or replaced.
(f) No process section of an
experimental process line is considered
an affected facility for continuous or
intermittent process emissions.
(g) individual vent streams that emu
continuous emissions with uncontrolled
annual emissions of less than 1.6 Mg/yr
or with a weight percent TOC of less
than 0.10 percent from a new, modified.
or reconstructed polypropylene or
polyethylene affected facility are
exempt from the requirements of
§ e0.562-l(a)(l). If at a later date, an
individual stream's uncontrolled annual
emissions become 1.6 Mg/yr or greater
(if the stream was exempted on the
basis of the uncontrolled annual
emissions exemption) or VOC
concentration becomes 0.10 weight
percent or higher (if the stream was
exempted on the basis of the VOC
concentration exemption), then the
stream is subject to the requirements of
§ 60.562-1.
(h) Emergency vent streams, as
defined in § 60.561. from a new.
modified, or reconstructed
polypropylene or polyethylene affected
facility are exempt from the
requirements of § 60.562-l(a)(2).
(i) An owner or operator of a
polypropylene or polyethylene affected
-------
51038 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Reeuiaiions
facility that commenced construction.
modification, or reconstruction after
September 30,1987, and on or before
January 10.1989, and that is in a process
line in which more than one type of
pnlyolefin (i.e., polypropylene, low
density polyethylene, high density
polyethylene, or their polymers) is
produced shall select one of the
polymer/production process
combinations in Table 1 for purposes of
determining applicable affected
facilities and uncontrolled threshold
emissions rates.
(Note: The numerical emissions limits in
these standards are expressed in terms of
total organic compounds, measured as total
organic compounds less methane and
ethane.)
§ 6O561 Definitions.
As used in this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act. in subpart A of
part 60. or in subpart VV of part BO, and
the following terms shall have the
specific meanings given them.
Boiler means any enclosed
combustion device that extracts useful
energy in the form of steam.
Capital expenditure means, in
addition to the definition in 40 CFR 60.2.
an expenditure for a physical or
operational change to an existing facility
that exceeds P. the product of the
facility's replacement cost R. and an
adjusted annual asset guideline repair
allowance, A. as reflected by the
following equation: P = R x A. where
(a) The adjusted annual asset
guideline repair allowance. A. is the
product of the percent of the
replacement cost Y. and the applicable
basic annual asset guideline repair
allowance. B. as reflected by the
following equation: A = Y x (B -•- 100):
(b) The percent Y is determined from
the following equation: Y = 1.0 — 0.57
log X, where X is 1986 minus the year of
construction: and
(c) The applicable basic annual asset
guideline repair allowance. B. is equal to
12J.
Car-sealed means, for purposes of
these standards, a seal that is placed on
the device used to change the position of
a valve (e.g.. from opened to closed)
such that the position of the valve
cannot be changed without breaking the
seal and requiring the replacement of
the old seal once broken with a new
seal.
Closed vent system means a system
that is not open to the atmosphere and
that is composed of piping, connections,
and, if necessary, flow inducing devices
that transport gas or vapor from a piece
or pieces of equipment to a control
de\ ice.
Continuous emissions means any gas
stream containing VOC that is
generated essentially continuously when
the process line or any piece of
equipment in the orocess line is
operating.
Continuous process means
polymerization process in which
reactants are introduced in a continuous
manner and products are removed either
continuously or intermittently at regular
intervals so that the process can be
operated and polymers produced
essentially continuously.
Control device means an enclosed
combustion device, vapor recovery
system, or flare.
Copplymer means a polymer that has
two different repeat units in its chain.
Decomposition means, for the
purposes of these standards, an event in
a polymerization reactor that advances
to the point where the polymerization
reaction becomes uncontrollable, the
polymer begins to break down
(decompose), and it becomes necessary
to relieve the reactor instantaneously in
order to avoid catastrophic equipment
damage or serious adverse personnel
safety consequences.
Decomposition emissions refers to
those emissions released from a polymer
production process as the result of a
decomposition or during attempts to
prevent a decomposition.
Emergency vent stream means, for the
purposes of these standards, an
intermittent emission that results from a
decomposition, attempts to prevent
decompositions, power failure.
equipment failure, or other unexpected
cause that requires immediate venting of
gases from process equipment in order
to avoid safety hazards or equipment
damage. This includes intermittent vents
that occur from process equipment
where normal operating parameters
(e.g.. pressure to temperature) are
exceeded such that the process
equipment can not be returned to
normal operating conditions using the
design features of the system and
venting must occur to avoid equipment
failure or adverse safety personnel
consequences and to minimize adverse
effects of the runaway reaction. This
does not include intermittent vents that
are designed into the process to
maintain normal operating conditions of
process vessels including those vents
that regulate normal process vessel
pressure.
End finisher means a polymerization
reaction vessel operated under very low
pressures, typically at pressures of 2 ten-
or less, in order to produce high
viscosity polyethylene terephthalate).
An end finisher is preceded in a high
viscosity polyethylene terephthalate)
process line by one or more
polymerization vessels operated under
less severe vacuums, typically between
5 and 10 torr. A high viscosity
polyfethylene terephthalate) process
line may have one or more end finishers.
Existing contra/ device means, for the
purposes of these standards, an air
pollution control device that has been m
operation on or before September 30.
1987, or that has been in operation
between September 30.1987, and
January 10,1989. on those continuous or
intermittent emissions from a process
section that is marked by an "—" in
Table 1 of this subpart.
Existing control device is
reconstructed means, for the purposes of
these standards, the capital expenditure
of at least 50 percent of the replacement
cost of the existing control device.
Existing control device is replaced
means, for the purposes of these
standards, the replacement of an
existing control device with another
control device.
Expandable polystyrene means a
polystyrene bead to which a blowing
agent has been added using either an in-
situ suspension process or a post-
impregnation suspension process.
Experimental process line means a
polymer or copoiymermanufactunng
process line with the sole purpose of
operating to evaluate' polymer
manufacturing processes, technologies,
or products. An experimental process
line does not produce a polymer or resin
that is sold or that is used as a raw
material for nonexperimental process
lines.
Flame zone means that portion of the
combustion chamber in a boiler
occupied bv the flame envelope.
Fugitive emissions equipment moans
each pump, compressor, pressure relief
device, sampling connection system.
open-ended valve or line, valve, and
flange or other connector in VOC
service and any devices or systems
required by subpart W of this part.
Gas phase process means a
polymerization process in which the
polymerization process is carried out in
the gas phase: i.e., the monomers) are
gases in a fluidized bed of catalyst
particles and granular polymer.
High density polyethylene (HOPE)
means a thermoplastic polymer or
copolymer comprised of at least 50
percent ethylene by weight and having a
density of greater than 0.940 g/cm3.
High pressure process means the
conventional production process for .the
manufacture of low density
polyethylene in which a reaction
pressure of about 15,000 psig or greater
is used.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
51039
High viscosity polyfethylene
terephthalate) means poly(ethylene
terephthalate) that has an intrinsic
viscosity of 0.9 or higher and is used in
such applications as tire cord and seat
belts.
Incinerator means an enclosed
combustion device that is used for
destroying VOC.
In-situ suspension process means a
manufacturing process in which styrene.
blowing agent and other raw materials
are added together within a reactor for
the production of expandable
polystyrene.
Intermittent emissions means those
gas streams containing VOC that are
generated at intervals during process
line operation and includes both
planned and emergency releases.
Liquid phase process means a
polymerization process in which the
polymerization reaction is carried out in
the liquid phase: i.e.. the monomerfs)
and any catalyst are dissolved, or
suspended in a liquid solvent.
Liquid phase slurry process means a
liquid phase polymerization process in
which the monomerfs) are in solution
(completely dissolved) in a liquid
solvent, but the polymer is in the form of
solid particles suspended in the liquid
reaction mixture during the
polymerization reaction: sometimes
called a particle form process.
Liquid phase solution process means
a liquid phase polymerization process in
which both the monomerfs) and polymer
are in solution (completely dissolved) in
the liquid reaction mixture.
Low density polyethylene (LDPE)
means a thermoplastic polymer or
copolymer comprised of at least 50
percent ethylene by weight and having a
density of 0.940 g/cma or less.
Low pressure process means a
production process for the manufacture
of low density polyethylene in which a
reaction pressure markedly below that
used in a high pressure process is used.
Reaction pressure of current low
pressure processes typically go up to
about 300 psig.
Low viscosity polyfethylene
terephthalate) means a.polyfethylene
terephthalate) that has an intrinsic
viscosity of less than 0.75 and is used in
such applications as clothing, bottle, and
film production.
Material recovery section means the
equipment tha. recovers unreacted or
by-product materials from any process
section for return to the process line, off-
site purification or treatment or sale.
Equipment designed to separate
unreacted or by-product material from
the polymer product are to be included
in this process section, provided at least
some of the material is recovered for
reuse in the process, off-site purification
or treatment, or sale, at the time the
process section becomes an affected
facility. Otherwise such equipment are
to be assigned to one of the other
process sections, as appropriate.
Equipment that treats recovered
materials are to be included in this
process section, but equipment that also
treats raw materials are not to be
included in this process section. The
latter equipment are to be included in
the raw materials preparation section. If
equipment is used to return unreacted or
by-product material directly to the same
piece of process equipment from which
it was emitted, then that equipment is
considered part of the process section
that contains the process equipment. If
equipment is used to recover unreacted
or by-product material from a process
section and return it to nother process
section or a different piece of process
equipment in the same process section
or sends it off-site for purification.
treatment, or sale, then such equipment
are considered part of a material
recovery section. Equipment used for the
on-site recovery of ethylene glycol from
polyfethylene terephthalate) plants.
however, are not included in the
material recovery section, but are
covered under the standards applicable
to the polymerization reaction section
(! 60.562-l(c)(l)(ii)(A) or (2)(ii)(A)).
Operating day means, for the
purposes of these standards, any
calendar day during which equipment
used in the manufacture of polymer was
operating for at least 8 hours or one
labor shift, whichever is shorter. Only
operating days shall be used in
determining compliance with the
standards specified in § 60.562-
l(c)(l)(ii)(B), (l)(ii)(C). (2)(ii)(B). and
(2)(ii)(C). Any calendar day in which
equipment is used for less than 8 hours
or one labor shift whichever is less, is
not an "operating day" and shall not be
used as part of the rolling 14-day period
for determining compliance with the
standards specified in § 60.562-
l(c)(l)(ii)(B). (l)(ii)(C). (2)(ii)(B). and
Polyethylene means a thermoplastic
polymer or copolymer comprised of at
least 50 percent ethylene by weight: see
low density polyethylene and high
density polyethylene.
Polyethylene terephthalate) (PET)
means a polymer or copolymer
comprised of at least 50 percent bis-{2-
hydroxyethyl)-terephthalate (BHET) by
weight
Polyethylene terephthalate) [PET)
manufacture using dimethyl
terephthalic means the manufacturing of
polyethylene terephthalate) based on
the esterification of dimethyl
terephthalate (DMT) with ethylene i
glycol to form the intermediate monomer
bis-(2-hydroxyethyl)-terephthalate
(BHET) that is subsequently
polymerized to PET.
Polyfethylene terephthalate) (PET)
manufacture using terephthalic acid
means the manufacturing of
polyfethylene terephthalate) based on
the esterification reaction of
terephthalic acid (TPA) with ethylene
glycol to form the intermediate monomer
bis-(2-hydroxyethyl)-terephthalate
(BHET) that is subsequently
polymerized to form PET.
Polymerization reaction section
means the equipment designed to cause
monomerfs) to react to form polymers.
including equipment designed primarily
to cause the formation of short polymer
chains (oligomers or low polymers), but
not including equipment designed to
prepare raw materials for
polymerization, e.g., esterification
vessels. For the purposes of these
standards, the polymerization reaction
section begins with the equipment used
to transfer the materials from the raw
materials preparation section and ends
with the last vessel in which
polymerization occurs. Equipment used
for the on-site recovery of ethylene
glycol from polyethylene terephthalate)
plants, however, are included in this
process section, rather than in the
material recovery process section.
Polypropylene (PP) means a
thermoplastic polymer or copolymer
comprised of at least 50 percent
propylene by weight.
Polystyrene (PS) means a
thermoplastic polymer or copolymer
comprised of at least 80 percent styrene
or para-methylstyrene by weight.
Post-impregnation suspension process
means a manufacturing process in which
polystyrene beads are first formed in a
suspension process, washed, dried, or
otherwise finished and then added with
a blowing agent to another reactor in
which the beads and blowing agent are
reacted to produce expandable
polystyrene.
Process heater means a device that
transfers heat liberated by burning fuel
to fluids contained in tubular coils,
including all fluids except water that is
heated to produce steam.
Process lino means a group of
equipment assembled that can operate
independently if supplied with sufficient
raw materials to produce polypropylene.
polyethylene, polystyrene, (general
purpose, crystal, or expandable) or
polyfethylene terephthalate) or one of
their copolymers. A process line
consists of the equipment in the
following process sections (to the extent
-------
51040 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. "December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
that these process sections are present
at a plant): raw materials preparation.
polymerization reaction, product
finishing, product storage, and material
recovery.
Process section means the equipment
designed to accomplish a general but
well-defined task in polymer production.
Process sections include raw materials
preparation, polymerization reaction.
material recovery, product finishing, and
product storage and may be dedicated
to a single process line or common to
more than one process line.
Process unit means equipment
assembled to perform any of the
physical and chemical operations in the
production of polypropylene.
polyethylene, polystyrene, (general
purpose, crystal, or expandable), or
polyethylene terephthalate) or one of
their copoiymers. A process unit can
operate independently if supplied with
sufficient feed or raw materials and
sufficient storage facilities for the
product Examples of process units are
raw materials handling and monomer
recovery.
Product finishing section means the
equipment that treats, shapes, or
modifies the polymer or resin to produce
the finished end product of the
particular facility, including equipment
that prepares the product for product
finishing. For the purposes of these
standards, the product finishing section
begins with the equipment used to
transfer the polymerized product from
the polymerization reaction section and
ends with the last piece of equipment
that modifies the characteristics of the
polymer. Product finishing equipment
may accomplish product separation.
extruding and palletizing, cooling and
drying, blending, additives introduction.
curing, or annealing. Equipment used to
separate unreacted or by-product
material from the product are to be
included in this process section.
provided the material separated from
the polymer product is not recovered at
the time the process section becomes an
affected facility. If the material is being
recovered, then the separation
equipment are to be included in the
material recovery section. Product
finishing does not include
polymerization, the physical mixing of
the pellets to obtain a homogenous
mixture of the polymer (except as noted
below), or the shaping (such as fiber
spinning, molding, or fabricating) or
modification (such as fiber stretching
and crimping) of the finished end
product If physical mixing occurs in
equipment located between product
finishing equipment (Le.. before all the
chemical and physical characteristics
have been "set" by virtue of having
passed through the last piece of
equipment in the product finishing
section), then such equipment are to be
included in this process section.
Equipment used to physically mix the
finished product that are located after
last piece of equipment in the product
finishing section are part of the product
storage section.
Product storage section means the
equipment that is designed to store the
finished polymer or resin end product of
the particular facility. For the purposes
of these standards, the product storage
section begins with the equipment used
to transfer the finished product out of
the product finishing section and ends
with the containers used to store the
final product Any equipment used after
the product finishing section to recover
unreacted or by-product material are to
be considered part of a material
recovery section. Product storage does
not include any intentional modification
of the characteristics of any polymer or
resin product but does include
equipment that provide a uniform
mixture of product, provided such
equipment are used after the last
product finishing piece of equipment.
This process section also does not
include the shipment of a finished
polymer or resin product to another
facility for further finishing or
fabrication.
Raw materials preparation section
means the equipment located at a
polymer manufacturing plant designed
to prepare raw materials, such as
monomers and solvents, for
polymerization. For the purposes of
these standards, this process section
begins with the equipment used to
transfer raw materials from storage and
recovered material from material
recovery process sections, and ends
with fie last piece of equipment that
prepares the material for
polymerization. The raw materials
preparation section may include
equipment that accomplishes
purification, drying, or other treatment
of raw materials or of raw and
recovered materials together, activation
of catalysts, and esterification including
the formation of some short polymer
chains (oligomers). but does not include
equipment that is designed primarily to
accomplish the formation of oligomera.
the treatment of recovered materials
alone, or the storage of raw materials.
Recovery system means an individual
unit or series of material recovery units,
such as absorbers, condensers, and
carbon adsorbers, used for recovering
volatile organic compounds.
Total organic compounds (TOC)
means those compounds measured
according to the procedures specified in
§ 60.584.
Vent stream means any gas stream
. released to the atmosphere directly from
an emission source or indirectly either
through another piece of process
equipment or a material recovery device
that constitutes part of the normal
recovery operations in a polymer
process line where potential emissions
are recovered for recycle or resale, and
any gas stream directed to an air
pollution control device. The emissions
released from an air pollution control
device are net considered a vent stream
unless, as noted above, the control
device is part of the normal material
recovery operations in a polymer
process line where potential emissions
are recovered for recycle or resale.
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
means, for the purposes of these
standards, any reactive organic
compounds as defined in § 60.2
Definitions.
§ 60.562-1 Standards: Process emissions.
(a) Polypropylene, low density
polyethylene, and high density
polyethylene. Each owner or operator of
a polypropylene, low density
polyethylene, or high density
polyethylene process line containing a
process section subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall comply with the
provisions in this section on and after
the date on which the initial
performance test required by § 60.8 is
completed, but not later than 60 days
after achieving the maximum production
rate at which the affected facility will be
operated, or 180 days after initial startup
whichever comes first.
(1) Continuous emissions. For each
vent stream that emits continuous
emissions from an affected facility as
defined in § 60.560(a)(l), the owner or
operator shall use the procedures
identified in paragraphs (a)(l) (ii) and
(iii) of this section for determining which
continuous emissions are to be
controlled and which level of control
listed in paragraph (a)(l)(i) of this
section is to be met The owner or
operator shall use the procedures
identified in paragraphs (a)(l) (ii) and
(iii) of this section each time a process
section is constructed, modified, or
reconstructed at the plant site.
(i] Level of control. Continuous
emission streams determined to be
subject to control pursuant to the
procedures identified in paragraphs
(a)(l) (ii) and (iii) of this section, as
applicable, shall meet one of the control
levels identified in paragraphs (a)(l)(i)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
51041
(A) through (D) of this section. The
procedures in paragraphs (a)(l) (ii) and
(iii) of this section identify which level
of control may be met. The level of
control identified in paragraph
(a)(l)(i)(D) of this section is limited to
certain continuous emission streams.
which are identified through the
procedures in paragraphs (a)(l) (ii) and
(iii) of this section.
(A) Reduce emissions of total organic
compounds (minus methane and ethane)
(TOG) by 98 weight percent, or to a
concentration of 20 parts per millions by
volume (ppmv) on a dry basis,
whichever is less stringent The TOC is
expressed as the sum of the actual
compounds, not carbon equivalents. If
an owner or operator elects to comply
with the 20 ppmv standard, the
concentration shall include a correction
to 3 percent oxygen only when
supplemental combustion air is used to
combust the vent stream.
(B) Combust the emissions in a boiler
or process heater with a design heat
input capacity of 150 million Btu/hour or
greater by introducing the vent stream
into the flame zone of the boiler or
process heater. (Note: A boiler or
process heater of lesser design heat
capacity may be used, but must
demonstrate compliance with paragraph
(a)(l)(i)(A) of this section.)
(C) Combust the emissions in a flare
that meets the conditions specified in
§ 60.18. If the flare is used to control
both continuous and intermittent
emissions, the flare shall meet the
conditions specified in § 60.18 at all
times (i.e.. which controlling continuous
emissions alone or when controlling
both continuous and intermittent
emissions).
(D) Vent the emissions to a control
device located on the plant site.
(ii) Uncontrolled Continuous
Emissions. For each vent stream that
emits continuous emissions from an
affected facility as defined in
§ B0.560(a)(l) and that is not controlled
in an existing control device, the owner
or operator shall use the procedures
identified in Table 3 to identify those
continuous emissions from each
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
affected facility that are to be
controlled. The owner shall include in
the procedure all uncontrolled
continuous vent streams from previously
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
affected facilities at the plant site each
time a process section is constructed.
modified, or reconstructed at the plant
site. In applying the procedures shown
in Table 3, the stream characteristics
may be either measured or calculated as
specified in § 60.564(d). For modified or
reconstructed affected facilities, these
stream characteristics are to be
determined after a modification or
reconstruction determination has been
made by the Administrator, but before
any actual changes have been
undertaken, and then again after the
actual changes have been made. Figure
1 provides a summary overview of the
control determination procedure
described in Table 3.
TABLE 3.—PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING CONTROL AND APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR CONTINUOUS EMISSION STREAMS FROM NEW,
MODIFIED, OR RECONSTRUCTED POLYPROPYLENE AND POLYETHYLENE AFFECTED FACILITIES
Procedure/a/
Applicable
TOC weight
I range
Control/no control criteria
Applicable standard
1. Sum all uncontrolled. Krsams with TOC weight par-
cent withm tn» appkcabte weight percent rang* from
0.10 < 5.5
all affected facMoa* at a plant ana.
2. Calculate total uncontrolled annual emissions for
each weight percent range. For modified or affected
tartmes. use the total uncontrolled emissions after {
modification or reconstruction. |
3. Calculate composite TOC concentration (weight per- I 5.5 < 20
cent) tor streams m the 0.10 to less than 5.5 weight >
percent range and tor streams in the 5.5 to less than I
20 weight percent range. For modified or reconstruct- I
ed affected taokees. calculate the composite VOC ',
before and after modrhcataxi and re-
concentra
4. Select the runner at the two TOC c
each weight percent range for vent streams from a
itratnns tor I 20 to 100
modified or reconstructed affected facility.
5. Calculate the threshold emissions for the 0.10 to
less than 5.5 weight percent range and tor the 5.5 to
lesa than 20 weight percent range using tne
trve composite TOC concentration selected aba
1. If total combined uncontrolled emis-
sions are equal to or greater than the
calculated threshold emissions
(CTE) /b/. control.
2. It total combined uncontrolled emis-
sion are less than the CTE /b/, con-
trol only individual streams with
volume flow rates of B scfm or less.
1. If total combined uncontrolled emis-
sions are equal to or greater than
CTE, control.
2. If total combined uncontrolled emis-
sons are less than the CTE /b/, con-
trol only individual streams with
volume flow rates of 0 scfm or less.
1. if total combined unconliuUeU emts*
sons are equal to or greater then
18.2 Mg/yr. control.
2. H total combined uncontrolled emis-
sions are less than 18.2 Mg/yr, con-
trol.
1. 560.562-1(a)(D(i) j «*••"'• ««chided under paragraph «60.580(g) from the requirements of J60.562-1 are to be excluded from all calculations in this taole. Th,s
lISiiUJS!!!?^! .""TS00 J^?"* Wlth "SS?*111* ""CO"**** annual emission rates of less man 1.6 Mg/yr and all individual emission streams wtn
concentrations of less than 0.10 percent TOC by weight
b For the 0.10 to less than 5.5 weight percent range, the following equations are used:
H the percent composite
TOC concentration is
!
Use this equation to
calculate threshold
If the percent composite
TOC concentration a
Use this equation to
calculate threshold
where: a=(0.12-weight percent TOC).26
f 0.18 ,
0-2<0.3_
0.3 <0 4.
-------
51042 Federal Registei / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
weight percent TOC
c = (0.3-weight percent TOC)2
d = (0.4-weight percent TOC).1S
For the 5.5 to less than 20 weight percent
range, the following equations are used.
if the percent composite
TOC concentration n |
Use tna equation to
calculate thresnold
5.5 < 7.0 (ex 740)+31
70<9.0 (fx324)+25.0
9 °<20 (gx 125) +18.2
where:
7.0
weight percent TOC ' " -1
weight percent TOC
9.0
-1
weight percent TOC
weight percent TOC
20J)
weight percent TOC
weight percent TOC
tUUMO COM MM
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11.1990 / Roles and Reflations
AffCCTCO FKUm HAS
UNCONTROLLED awTiiroous
EMISSIONS.
1.1
COMBINE 1NOIVIOUAL STREAMS ACCORDING 10 HEIGHT
PERCENT MRS! (O.I < 5.5, 5.5 < ?0. JO TO iOfl!
[00 NOT INCLUDE EMISSIONS FROM STREAMS
EXCLUDED UNOUt f«e.5M(d> OR $60.560(9).].
1.2
ADO IN ANY UNCONTROLLED EMISSION STREAMS
IN THE SAME WIGHT PERCENT MNGE
FROM PREVIOUS AFFECTED FACILITIES.
j 1.3
CALCULATE TOTAL ANNUAL
EMISSIONS FOR EACH
WEIGHT PERCENT RANGE
ACCORDING TO THE
PROCEDURES IN TAQLE 3.
1.4
20 TO 100 HEIGHT
PERCENT
CONTROL 98V TO 20 PPMV, IN A
CONTROL DEVICE THAT MEETS SPECIFIED
OPERATING CONDITIONS. OR IN AN
EXISTING CONTROL CEVICE
1.7
ARE EMISSIONS EQUAL TO OR
GREATER THAU THE CALCULATED
THRESHOLD EMISSIONS?
1.5
5.5 TO 20 HEIGHT
PERCENT
0.1 TO 5.5 HEIGHT
PERCENT
res
ARE EMISSIONS EQUAL TO OR
GREATER THAM THE CALCULATED
THRESHOLD EMISSIONS?
NO
1.6
SPLIT STREAMS INTO
>8 SCFH AND THOSE
<8 SCFM.
CONTROL 985, TO 20 PPMV. OR IN
A CONTROL DEVICE THAT MEETS
SPECIFIED OPERATING CONDITIONS
<8 sen*
1.9
1.8
>8 SCFM
1.10
1.11
NO CONTROL AT THIS TIKE. RETURN TO OECISIONHAKIN6
PROCESS NEXT TIKE A PROCESS SECTION BECOMES AN
AFFECTED FACILITY OR A CONTROL OEVCE IS MODIFIED
RECONSTRUCTED. 03 REPLACED (SEE FIGURE Z. BLOCK 2.8).
Figure 1. Decisionmaking Process for Uncontrolled Continuous Emissions
from Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
114
OOti
-------
51044 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
(iii) Controlled Continuous Emissions.
For each vent stream that emits
continuous emissions from an affected
facility as defined in § 60.560(a)(l) and
that is controlled in an existing control
device, each owner or operator shall
determine whether the emissions
entering the control device are greater
than or equal to the calculated threshold
omissions (CTE) level, which is to be
calculated using the TOC concentration
of the inlet vent steam and the equations
in footnote b of Table 3. If the inlet
stream's TOC concentration is equal to
or less than 20 weight percent, the
calculated threshold emissions level is
18.2 Mg/yr. if multiple emission streams
are vented to the control device, the
individual streams are not to be
separated into individual weight percent
ranges for calculations purposes as
would be done for uncontrolled
emission steams. Emissions vented to an
existing control device are required to
be controlled as described in paragraphs
(a)(l){iii) (A) and (B) of this section.
Figure 2 illustrates the control
determination procedure for controlled
continuous emissions.
BILLING
6S«0-$O-«
-------
Federal Register / Vol. S5. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11.1990 / Ruiea and Regulations 51043
AFFECTED FACILITY HAS
CONTROLLED CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS
2.1
ARE EMISSIONS EQUAL TO OR
GREATER THAN THE
CALCULATED THRESHOLD EMISSIONS?
STANDARD DOES
NOT NEED TO BE
MET AT THIS TIHE.
NO
2.6
CONTROL DEVICE IS MODIFIED
RECONSTRUCTED, OR REPLACED.
2.2
YES
2.7
DOES EHSTIKS CONTROL
DEVICE REDUCE EMISSIONS
BY 96 PERCENT OR TO
20 PPMV OR KEET NECESSARY
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS?
ADO IN UNCONTROLLED STREAMS
III SAKE WEIGHT PERCENT
RANGE FROM PREVIOUS
AFFECTED FACILITIES.
2.3
ARE EMISSIONS NOW
EQUAL TO OR 6REATER THAN
THE CALCUALTEO THRESHOLD
EMISSIONS?
2.3
\
YES
STANDARD IS TO BE MET NEXT
TIME THE CORTROL DEVICE IS
MODIFIED, RECONSTRUCTED, OR
REPLACED. ADO IN ANY UNCON-
TROLLED EMISSIONS IN SAME
HEIGHT PERCENT RANGE FROM
ANY AFFECTED FACILITY.
RO FWTHEH
CONTROL IS
REQUIRED.
2.5
2.4
2.9
,,tlS
-CONTROL BY 98 PERCENT. TO 20 PPMV,
OR IN A CONTROL DEVICE THAT MEETS
SPECIFIED OPERATING CONDITIONS
2.10
NOTE: There are no individual stream exceptions for emissions already
controlled by existing control devices.
Figure 2. Decisionraaking Process for Continuous Emissions Alreaoy
Controlled at Polypropylene and Polyethylene Affected Facilities
116
Mumacooei
-------
51046 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
(A) If the annual emissions of the
steam entering the control device are
equal to or greater than the CTE levels.
then compliance with one of the
requirements identified in § 60.562-
l(a)(l)(i) (A). (B). or (C) is required at
such time the control device is
reconstructed or replaced or has its
operating conditions modified as a
result of State or local regulations
(including changes in the operating
permit) including those instances where
the control device is reconstructed.
replaced, or modified in its operation at
the same time the existing process
section is modified or reconstructed and
becomes an affected facility. If the
existing control device already complies
with one of the requirements identified
in § 60.562-l(a}(l)(i) (A). (B). or (C). no
further control is required.
(B) If the annual emissions of the
stream entering the control device are
less than the CTE level, then the
requirements of § 60.562-l(a)(l)(i) (A).
(B). or (C) are not applicable at that
time. However, if the control device is
replaced, reconstructed, or modified at a
later date, each owner or operator shall
reevaluate the applicability of these
standards. This is done by combining
with the vent stream entering the control
device any uncontrolled vent steams in
the same weight percent range as the
controlled vent steam and determining
whether the annual emissions of the
stream entering the control device plus
the applicable uncontrolled vent steams
an greater than or equal to the CTE
level, which is based on the weighted
TOG concentration of the controlled
vent stream and the uncontrolled vent
streams. If the annual emissions
entering the control device (including
the applicable uncontrolled vent
streams) are greater than or equal to the
CTE level, then compliance with one of
the requirements identified in f 60.562-
l(a)(l)(i) (A). (B). or (C) is required at
that time for both the controlled and
uncontrolled vent steams. If the annual
emissions are less than the CTE level.
compliance with these standards is
again not required at such time.
However, if the control device ia again
replaced, reconstructed, or modified,
each, owner or operator shall repeat this
determination procedure.
(2) Intermittent emissions. The owner
or operator shall control each vent
steam that emits intermittent emissions
from an affected facility as defined in
§ 6O560-l(a)(l) by meeting one of the
control requirements specified in
paragraphs (a)(2) (i) and (it) of this
section. If a vent stream that emits
intermittent emissions is controlled in
an existing flare, incinerator, boiler.or
process heater, the requirements of this
paragraph are waived until such time
the control device is reconstructed or
replaced or is modified in its operating
conditions as a result of State or local
regulation, including changes in the
operating permit. This paragraph does
not apply to emergency vent streams
exempted by § 60.560(h) and as defend
in § 60.561.
(i) Combust the emissions in a flare
that is:
(A) Designed for and operated with no
visible emissions, except for periods not
to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any
2 consecutive hours.
(B) Operated with a flame present at
all times, and
(C) Designed to maintain a stable
flame.
(ii) Combust the emissions in an
incinerator, boiler, or process heater.
Such emissions shall be introduced into
the flame zone of a boiler or process
heater.
(b) Polystyrene. Each owner or
operator of a polystyrene process line
containing process section subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall comply
with the provisions in this section on
and after the date on which the initial
performance test required by § 60.8 is
completed, but not later than 60 days
after achieving the maximum production
rate at which the affected facility will be
operated, or 180 days after initial
startup, whichever comes first East
owner or operator of a polystyrene
process line using a continuous process
shall:
(1) Limit the continuous TOC
emissions from the material recovery
section by complying with one of the
following:
. (i) Not allow continuous TOC
emissions to be greater than 0.0036 kg
TOC/Mg produce or
(ii) Not allow the outlet gas stream
temperature from each final condenser
in the material recovery section to
exceed -25 'C (-13 T). For purposes of
this standard, temperature excursions
above this limit shall not be considered
a violation when such excursions occur
during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction: or
(iii) Comply with $ 80.562-1 (a)(!)(!)
(A). (B). or (C).
(2) If continuous TOC emissions from
the material recovery section are routed
through an existing emergency vapor
recovery system, then compliance with
these standards is required when the
emergency vapor recovery system
undergoes modification, reconstruction.
or replacement In such instances.
compliance with these standards shall
be achieved no later than 180 days after
completion of the modification.
reconstruction, or replacement.
(c) Poly(ethylene terephtha/atej. Each
owner or operator of a polyfethylene
terphthalate) process line containing
process sections subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall comply
with provisions in this section on and
after the date on which the initial
performance test required by § 60.8 is
completed but not later than 60 days
after achieving the maximum production
rate at which the affected facility will be
operated, or 180 days after initial
startup, whichever comes first.
(1) Each owner or operator of a PET
process line using a dimethyl
terphthalate process shall:
(i) Limit the continuous TOC
emissions from the material recovery
section (i.e.. methanol recovery) by
complying with one of the following:
(A) Not allow the continuous TOC
emissions to be greater than 0.018 kg
TOC/Mg product: or
(B) Not allow the outlet gas
temperature from each final condenser
in the material recovery section (i.e..
methanol recovery) to exceed -t-3 °C
(+37 °F). For purposes of this standard.
temperature excursions above this limn
shall not be considered a violation when
such excursions occur during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
(ii) Limit the continuous TOC
emissions and, if steam-jet ejectors are
used to provide vacuum to the
polymerization reactors, the ethylene
giycol concentration from the
polymerization reaction section by
complying with the appropriate
standard set forth below. The ethylene
giycol concentration limits specified in
paragraphs (c)(l)(ii) (B) and (C) of this
section shall be determined by the
procedures specified in § 60.564(j).
(A) Not allow continuous TOC
emissions from the polymerization
reaction section (including emissions
from any equipment used to further
recover the ethyiene giycol. but
excluding those emissions from the
cooling tower) to be greater than 0.02 kg
TOC/Mg product; and
(B) If steam-jet ejectors are used as
vacuum producers and a low viscosity
product is being produced using single
or multiple end finishers or a high
viscosity product is being produced
using a single end finisher, maintain the
concentration of ethylene giycol in the
liquid effluent exiting the vacuum
system servicing the polymerization
reaction section at or below 0.35 percent
by weight averaged on a daily basis
over a rolling 14-day period of operating
days: or
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations «!1O47
(Q If steam-jet ejectors are used as
vacuum producers and a high viscosity
product is being produced using multiple
end finishers, maintain an ethylene
glycol concentration in the cooling tower
at or below 6.0 percent by weight
averaged on a daily basis over a rolling
14-day period of operating days.
(2) Each owner or operator of a PET
process line using a terephthalic acid
process shall:
(i) Not allow the continuous TOC
emissions from the esterification vessels
in the raw materials preparation section
to be greater than 0.04 kg TOC/Mg
product.
(ii) Limit the continuous TOC
emissions and. if steam-jet ejectors are
used to provide vaccum to the
polymerization reactors, the ethylene
glycol concentration from the
polymerization reaction section by
complying with the appropriate
standard set forth below. The ethylene
glycol concentration limits specified in
paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) (B) and (C) of this
section shall be determined by the
procedures specified in § 60.564(j).
(A) Not allow continuous TOC
emissions from the polymerization
reaction section (including emissions
from any equipment used to further
recover the ethylene glycol but
excluding those emissions from the
cooling tower) to be greater than 0.02 kg
TOC/Mg product; and
(B) If steam-jet ejectors are used as
vacuum producers and a low viscosity
product is being produced using single
or multiple end finishers or a high
viscosity product is being produced
using a single end finisher, maintain the
concentration of ethylene glycol in the
liquid effluent exiting the vacuum
system servicing the polymerization
reaction section at or beiow 0.35 percent
by weight averaged on a daily basis
over a rolling 14-day period of operating
days: or
(C) If steam-jet ejectors are used as
vacuum producers and a high viscosity
product is being produced using multiple
end finishers, maintain an ethylene
glycol concentration in the cooling tower
at or below 6.0 percent by weight
averaged on a daily basis over a rolling
14-day period of operating days.
(d) Closed vent systems and control
devices used to comply with this
subpart shall be operated at all times
when emissions may be vented to them.
(e) Vent systems that contain valves
that could divert a vent stream from a
control device shall have car-sealed
opened all valves in the vent system
from the emission source to the control
device and car-sealed closed all valves
in vent system that would lead the vent
stream to the atmosphere, either directly
or indirectly, bypassing the control
device.
§6O562-2 Standards: Equipment teaks of
VOC.
(a) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall comply with the
requirements specified in § 60.482-1
through i 60-482-10 as soon as
practicable, but no later than 180 days.
after initial startup, except that
indications of liquids dripping from
bleed ports in existing pumps in light
liquid service are not .considered to be a
leak as defined in § 60.482-2(b)(2). For
purposes of this standard, a "bleed port"
is a technologically-required feature of
the pump whereby polymer fluid used to
provide lubrication and/or cooling of the
pump shaft exits the pump, thereby
resulting in a visible leak of fluid. This
exemption expires when the existing
pump is replaced or reconstructed.
(bj An owner or operator may elect to
comply with the requirements specified
in § 60.483-1 and § 60.483-2.
(c) An owner or operator may apply to
the Administrator for a determination of
equivalency for any means of emission
limitation that achieves a reduction in
emissions of VOC at least equivalent to
the reduction in emissions of VOC
achieved by the controls required in this
subpart In doing so. the owner or
operator shall comply with requirements
specified in 5 60.484.
(d) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the provisions specified in
§ 60.485 except an owner or operator
may use the following provision in
addition to § 60.485(e): Equipment is in
light liquid service if the percent
evaporated is greater than 10 percent at
150 °C as determined by ASTM Method
D86-78 (incorporated by reference as
specified in § 00.17).
(e) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with § 60.486 and § 60.487.
§60563 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Whenever a particular item of
monitoring equipment is specified in this
section to be installed, the owner or
operator shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate according to
manufacturer's specifications that item
as follows:
(1) A temperature monitoring device
to measure and record continuously the
operating temperature to within l
percent (relative to degrees Celsius) or
± 0.5 "C (± 0.9 *F), whichever is
greater.
(2) A flame monitoring device, such as
a thermocouple, an ultraviolet sensor, an
infrared beam sensor, or similar device
to indicate and record continuously
whether a flare or pilot light flame is
present as specified.
(3) A flow monitoring indicator to
indicate and record whether or not flow
exists at least once every fifteen
minutes.
(4) An organic monitoring device
(based on a detection principle such as
infrared, photoionization, or thermal
conductivity) to indicate and record
continuously the concentration level of
organic compounds.
(5) A specific gravity monitoring
device to measure and record
continuously to within 0.02 specific
gravity unit.
(b) The owner or operator shall
install, as applicable, the monitoring
equipment for the control means used to
comply with § 60.562-1. except § 60.562-
l(a)(l)(i)(D). as follows:
(1) If the control equipment is an
incinerator:
(i) For a noncatalytic incinerator, a
temperature monitoring device shall be
installed in the firebox.
(ii) Fora catalytic incinerator,
temperature monitoring devices shall be
installed in the gas stream immediately
before and after the catalytic bed.
(2) If a flare is used:
(i) A flame monitoring device shall be
installed to indicate the presence of a
flare flame or a flame for each pilot
light if the flare is used to comply with
§ 60.562-l(a)(l), including those flares
controlling both continuous and
intermittent emissions.
(ii) A thermocouple or equivalent
monitoring device to indicate the
presence of a flame at each pilot light, if
used to comply with § 60.562-l(a)(2).
(3) If a boiler or process heater is
used:
(i) If the boiler or process heater has a
heat input design capacity of less than
150 million Btu/hr. a temperature
monitoring device shall be installed
between the radiant section and the
convection zone for watertube boilers
and between the furnace (combustion
zone) and the firetubes for fire tube
boilers.
(ii) If the boiler or process heater has
a heat input design capacity of 150
million Btu/hr or greater, such records to
indicate the periods of operation of the
boiler or process heater shall be
maintained. The records must be readily
available for inspection.
(4) If an absorber is the final unit in a
system:
(i) A temperature monitoring device
and a specific gravity monitoring device
for the scrubber liquid shall be installed.
or
-------
51048 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
(ii) An organic monitoring device shall
be installed at the outlet of the absorber.
(5) If a condenser is the final unit in a
system:
(i) A temperature monitoring device
shall be installed at the condenser exist
(product side), or
(ii) An organic monitoring device shall
be installed at the outlet of the
condenser.
(6) If a carbon adsorber is the final
unit in a system, an organic monitoring
device shall be installed at the outlet of
the carbon bed.
(c) Owners or operators of control
devices used to comply with the
provisions of this subpart except
§ 60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D), shall monitor
these control devices to ensure that they
are operated and maintained in
conformance with their designs.
(d) Owners or operators using a vent
system that contains valves that could
divert a vent stream from a control
device used to comply with the
provisions of this subpart shall do one
or a combination of the following:
(1) Install a flow indicator
immediately downstream of each valve
that if opened would allow a vent
stream to bypass the control device and
be emitted, either directly or indirectly.
to the atmosphere. The flow indicator
shall be capable of recording flow at
least once every fifteen minutes.
(2) Monitor the valves onca a month.
chucking the position of the valves and
the condition of the car seal and
identify all times when the car seals
have been broken and the valve position
has been changed (Lew from opened to
closed for valves in the vent piping to
the control device and from closed to
open for valves that allow the stream to
be vented directly or indirectly to the
atmosphere).
(e) An owner or operator complying
with the standards specified under
§ 6056Z-1. except § 60.582-l(a)(l)(i)(D).
with control devices other than an
incinerator, boiler, process heater, flare.
absorber, condenser, or carbon adsorber
or by any other means shall provide to
the Administrator information
describing the operation of the control
device and the process parameters)
which would indicate proper operation
and maintenance of the device. The
Administrator may request former
information and will specify appropriate
monitoring procedures or requirements.
§60564 Test methods and procedures,
(a) In conducting the performance
tests required in i 6O& the owner or
operator shall UM as reference methods
and procedures the test methods in
appendix A of this part or other methods
and procedures specified in this section.
except as provided under § 60.8(b).
Owners or operators complying with
§ 60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D) need not perform a
performance test on the control device.
provided the control device is not used
to comply with any other requirement of
§ 60.562-l(a).
(1) Whenever changes are made in
production capacity, feedstock type or
catalyst type, or whenever there is
replacement removal, or addition of a
control device, each owner or operator
shall conduct a performance test
according to the procedures in this
section as appropriate, in order to
determine compliance with § 60.562-1.
(2) Where a boiler or process heater
with a design heat input capacity of 150
million Btu/hour or greater is used, the
requirement for an initial performance
test is waived, in accordance with
§ 60.8(b). However, the Administrator
reserves the option to require testing at
such other times as may be required, as
provided for in § 114 of the Act.
(3) The owner or operator shall
determine the average organic
concentration for each performance test
run using the equipment described in
§ 60.563(a)(4). The average organic
concentration shall be determined from
measurements taken at least every 15
minutes during each performance test
run. The average of the three runs shall
be the base value for the monitoring
program.
(4) When an absorber is the final unit
in the system, the owner or operator
shall determine the average specific
gravity for each performance test run
using specific gravity monitoring
equipment described in 5 60.563(a){5).
An average specific gravity shall be
determined from measurements taken at
least every 15 minutes during each
performance test run. The average of the
three runs shall be the base value for the
monitoring program.
(5) When a condenser is the final unit
in the system, the owner or operator
shall determine the average outlet
temperature for each performance test
run using the temperature monitoring
equipment described in { aO563(a)(l).
An avenge temperature shall be
determined from measurements taken at
least every 15 minutes dozing each
performance test run while the vent
stream is normally routed and
constituted. The average of the three
runs shall be the base value for the
monitoring program.
(b) The owner or operator shall
determine compliance with the emission
concentration standard in § 60.562—1
MtlXiXA) orfb)(l)(iii) if applicable [if
not see paragraph (c) of this section] as
follows:
(1) The TOG concentration is the sum
of the individual components and shall
be computed for each run using the
following equation:
= 2 C,
j = 1
where:
Croc = Concentration of TOC (minus
methane and ethane), dry basis, ppmv.
C, = the concentration of sample
component j, ppm.
n = Number of components in the samole.
(i) Method 18 shall be used to
determine the concentration of each
individual organic component (C,) in the
gas stream. Method 1 or 1A. as
appropriate, shall be used to determine
the sampling site at the outlet of the
control device. Method 4 shall be used
to determine the moisture content, if
necessary.
(ii) The .sampling time for each run
shall be 1 hour in which either an
integrated sample or four grab samples
shall be taken, if grab sampling is used.
then the samples shall be taken at 15
minute intervals. .
(2) If supplemental combustion air is
used, the TOC concentration shall be
corrected to 3 percent oxygen and shall
be computed using the following
equation:
CCOM
(_«_)
\ 203- SO* /
. Concentration of TOC corrected to
3 percent oxygen, dry basis, ppm by
volume.
= Concentration of TOC (minus
methane and ethane), dry basis, ppm by.
volume, as calculated in paragraph (b)(l)
of this section.
Concentration of Ot, dry basis.
percent by volume.
The emission rate correction factor,
integrated sampling and analysis
procedure of Method 3 shall be used to
determine the oxygen concentration
(%Oj<,). The sampling site shall be the
same as that of the TOC sample and the
samples shall be taken during the same
time that the TOC samples are taken.
(c) If paragraph fb) of this section is
not applicable, then the owner or
operator shall determine compliance
with the percent emission reduction
standard in f 60.562-1 (aKl)(D(A) or
(b)(l)(5ii) as follows:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations 51049
(1) The emission reduction of TOG
(minus methane and ethane) shall be
determined using the following equation:
X100
where:
Percent emission reduction, by weight.
— Mass rate of TOC entering the
control device, kg TOC/hr.
M = Mass rate of TOC, discharged to
the atmosphere, kg TOC/hr.
(2) The mass rates of TOC (Hi, Ł„)
shall be computed using the following
equations:
E,=K,
n
f S CuMu JQ,
E.-K,
n
I Z CJ*,. j Q0
where:
CD.CM « Concentration of sample
component")" of the gas stream at the
inlet and outlet of the control device,
respectively, dry basis, ppmv.
Mtfjd., — Molecular weight of sample
component ")" of the gas stream at the
inlet and outlet of the control device
respectively, g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole).
Qi.Q. — Flow rate of the gas stream at the
inlet and outlet of the control device,
respectively, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
Ki - 4.157 x 1(T« |(kg)/g-moie)|/
Ug)(ppmHdscm)) {5.711 x 10'" ((lb)/(lb-
mole)]/(lb)(ppm)(dscfj]}
(i) Method 18 shall be used to
determine the concentration of each
individual organic component (Co. C,,)
in the gas stream. Method 1 or 1A, as
appropriate, shall be used to determine
the inlet and outlet sampling sites. The
inlet site shall be before the inlet of the
control device and after all product
recovery units.
(ii) Method 2,2A. 2C, or 2D. as
appropriate, shall be used to determine
the volumetric flow rates (Q,, Q0). If
necessary, Method 4 shall be used to
determine the moisture content. Both
determinations shall be compatible with
the Method 18 determinations.
(in) Inlet and outlet samples shall be
taken simultaneously. The sampling
time for each run shall be 1 hour in
which either an integrated sample or
four grab samples shall be taken. If grab
sampling is used, then the samples shall
be taken at 15 minute intervals.
(d) An owner or operator shall
determine compliance with the
individual stream exemptions in
§ 60.560(g) and the procedures specified
in Table 3 for compliance with § 60.562-
l(a)(l) as identified in paragraphs (d)(l)
and (2) of this section. An owner or
operator using the procedures specified
in $ 60.562-l(a)(l) for determining which
continuous process emissions are to be
controlled may use calculations
demonstrated to be sufficiently accurate
as to preclude the necessity of actual
testing for purposes of calculating the
uncontrolled annual emissions and
weight percent of TOC. Owners or
operators seeking to exempt streams
under § 60.560(g) must use the
appropriate test procedures specified in
this section.
(1) The uncontrolled annual emissions
of the individual vent stream shall be
determined using the following equation:
Z
C,M|) QX8.800X 1Mg
' 1.000 kg
where:
&»„= uncontrolled annual emissions. Mg/yr
C,=*concentration of sample component "j"
of the gas stream, dry basis, ppmv.
Mj=Molecular weight of sample
component ")" of the gas stream, g/g-
mole (Ib/lb-mole).
Q-Flow rate of the gas stream, dscm/hr
(dscf/hr).
K,-4.157 x 10-'[(kg)/g-mole)]/
l(S)(PPn>)(dscm)| {5.711 x 10"'»[(lb)/
(lb-mole)J/(lb)(ppm)(dscf)]}
8.600-operating hours per year
(i) Method IS shall be used to
determine the concentration of each
individual organic component (C,;) in the
gas stream. Method 1 or 1A. as
appropriate, shall be used to determine
the sampling site. If the gas stream is
controlled in an existing control device,
the sampling site shall be before the
inlet of the control device and after all
product recovery units.
(ii) Method 2, 2A. 2C. or 2D. as
appropriate, shall be used to determine
the volumetric flow rate (Q). If
necessary, Method 4 shall be used to
determine the moisture content. Both
determinations shall be compatible with
the Method 18 determinations.
(iii) The sampling time for each run
shall be 1 hour in which either an
integrated sample or four grab sample:;
shall be taken. If grab sampling is used.
then the samples shall be taken at 15
minute intervals.
(2) The weight percent VOC of the
uncontrolled individual vent stream
shall be determined using the following
equation:
weight % TOC=
M,
c,
X100
MW_.X10S
where:
C,=concentration of sample TOC
component "j" of the gas stream, dry
basis, ppmv.
M,=Molecular weight of sample TOC
component "j" of the gas stream, g/g-
mole (Ib/lb-molc).
MWm=Average molecular weiaht of the
entire gas stream, g/g-mole (lb/lb-mo!e|.
(i) Method 18 shall be used to
determine the concentration of each
individual organic component (C,;) in
the gas stream. Method 1 or 1A. as
appropriate, shall be used to determine
;the sampling site. If the gas stream is
•controlled in an existing control device.
the sampling site shall be before the
inlet of the control device and after all
product recovery units. If necessary,
Method 4 shall be used to determine the
moisture content. This determination
-------
51050 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
shall be compatible with the Method 13
determinations.
(ii) The average molecular weight of
the gas stream shall be determined using
methods approved by the Administrator.
If the carrier component of the gas
stream is nitrogen, then an average
molecular weight of 28 g/g-mole (Ib/lb-
raole) may be used in lieu of testing. If
the carrier component of the gas stream
is air. then an average molecular weight
of 29 g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole) may be used
in lieu of testing.
(iii) The sampling time for each run
shall be 1 hour in which either an
integrated sample or four grab samples
shall be taken. If grab sampling is used.
then the samples shall be taken at 15
minute intervals.
(e) The owner or operator shall
determine compliance of flares with the
visible emission and flare provisions in
§ 60.562-1 as follows:
(1) Method 22 shall be used to
determine visible emission. The
observation period for each run shall be
2 hours.
(2) The monitoring device of
§ 60.563(b)(2) shall be used to determine
whether a flame is present.
(f) The owner or operator shall
determine compliance with the net
heating value provisions in § 60.18 as
referenced by J 60J62-l(a)(l)(i)(C). The
net heating value of the process vent
stream being combusted in a flare shall
be computed as follows:
H,-K,
where:
HT»Net heating value of the sample based
on the net enthalpy per mole of offgas
combusted at 25 *C and 760 mmHg. but
the standard temperature for determining
the volume corresponding to one mole ia
20'C.MJ/scm.
K,-Conversion constant 1.740XKT7
(1) (g mole) (MI.)
ppm sen kcal
where standard temperature for
(g mole)
scan
isZO'C
(^•Concentration of sample component j
in ppm on a wet basis.
H,-Net heat of combustion of sample
component j. at 25 'C and 7TO mm Ha.
kcal/g-mole.
(1) Method 18 shall be used to
determine the concentration of each
individual organic component (CJ in the
gas stream. Method 1 or 1A. as
appropriate, shall be used to determine
the sampling site to the inlet of the flare.
Using this same sample. ASTM D1948-
77 (incorporated by reference—see
§ 60.17) shall be used to determine the
hydrogen and carbon monoxide content.
(2) The sampling time for each run
shall be 1 hour in which either an
integrated sample or four grab samples
shall be taken. If grab sampling is used.
then the samples shall be taken at 15
minute intervals.
(3) Published or calculated values
shall be used for the net heats of
combustion of the sample components.
If values are not published or cannot be
calculated. ASTM D2382-76
(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17)
may be used to determine the net heat of
combustion of component "j."
(g) The owner or operator shall
determine compliance with the exit
velocity provisions in § 60.18 as
referenced by § 60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(C) as
follows:
(1) If applicable, the net heating value
(HT) of the process vent shall be
determined according to the procedures
in paragraph (f) of this section to
determine the applicable velocity
requirements.
(2) If applicable, the maximum
permitted velocity (V^ for steam-
assisted and nonassisted flares shall be
computed using the following equation:
where:
Lo8»(VM)=(HT+28J)/31.7
vnw«=Maximum permitted velocity, m/sec.
23.8=Constant
31.7=Constant.
Br=»The net heating value as determined
in paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) The maximum permitted velocity.
Vnu» for air-assisted flares shall be
determined by the following equation:
where:
V^-Maximum permitted velocity, m/sec.
17O8»« Constant
0.7084—Constant
Hr-iThe net heating value as determined
in paragraph (f) of thia section.
(4) The actual exit velocity of a flare
shall be determined by dividing the
volumetric flow rate (in units of
standard temperature and pressure), as
determined by Method 2.2A. 2C. or 2D
as appropriate, by the unobstructed
(free) cross sectional area of the flare
tip.
(h) The owner or operator shall
determine compliance with the mass
emission per mass product standards in
§5 60.560 (d) and (e) and in 5 § 60.562-1
. . .
and (c)(2)(ii)(A). The emission rate of
TOG shall be computed using the
following equation:
Eroc
ERT
iMg
P,X 1.000 kg
where:
ERTOC=Emission rate of total organic
compounds (minus methane and ethane).
kg TOC/Mg product.
ETOC=Emission rate of total organic
compounds (minus methane and ethane!
in the sample, kg/hr.
P,=The rate of polymer produced, kg/hr.
(1) The mass rate of TOG. ETOC, shall
be determined according to the
procedures, as appropriate, in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section. The sampling site
for determining compliance with
§§ 60.560 (d) and (e) shall be before any
add-on control devices and after all
product recovery devices. Otherwise.
the sampling site shall be at the oullet of
the control device.
(2) The rate of polymer produced. P0
(kg/hr). shall be determined by dividing
the weight of polymer pulled in
kilograms (kg) from the process line
during the performance test by the
number of hours (hr) taken to perform
the performance test. The polymer
pulled, in kilograms, shall be determined
by direct measurement or, subject to
prior approval by the Administrator,
computed from materials balance by
good engineering practice.
(i) The owner or operator shall
determine continuous compliance with
the temperature requirements in
§§ 6U562-l(b)(l)(ii) and 60.562-
l(c)(l)(i](B) by using the temperature
monitoring equipment described in
§ 60.563(a)(l). An average temperature
shall be determined from measurements
taken at least every 15 minutes every
three hours while the vent stream is
normally routed and constituted. Each
three-hour period constitutes a
performance test
(j) For purposes of determining
compliance with 5 60.562-l(c) (l)(ii)(B),
(l)(ii)(C). (2)Cti)(B). or<2Kii)(C). the
ethjrlene glycol concentration m either
the cooling tower or the liquid effluent
from steam-jet ejectors used to produce
a vacuum in the polymerization reactors.
whichever is applicable, shall be
determined:
(1) Using procedures that conform to
the methods described in ASTM 02908-
74. "Standard Practice for Measuring
Volatile Organic Matter in Water by
Aqueous-Injection Gas
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 233 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations 51051
Chromatogrophy" (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17), except as
provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this
section:
(i) At least one sample per operating
day shall be collected using the grab
sampling procedures of ASTM D3570-76.
"Standard Practices for Sampling
Water" (incorporated by reference—see
§ 60.17). An average ethylene glycol
concentration by weight shall be
calculated on a daily basis over a rolling
14-day period of operating days, except
as provided in paragraphs (j)(l) (ii) and
(iiij of this section. Each daily average
ethylene glycol concentration so
calculated constitutes a performance
test Exceedance of the standard during
the reduced testing program specified in
paragraphs (j)(l) (ii) and (iii) of this
section is a violation of these standards.
(ii) For those determining compliance
with § 60562-1(0) (l){5i)(B) or (2)(ii)(B),
the owner or operator may elect to
reduce the sampling program to any 14
consecutive day period once every two
calendar months, if at least seventeen
consecutive 14-day rolling average
concentrations immediately preceding
the reduced sampling program are each
less than 0.10 weight percent ethylene
glycol. If the average concentration
obtained over the 14 day sampling
during the reduced testing period
exceeds the upper 95 percent confidence
interval calculated'from the most recent
test results in which no one 14-day
average exceeded 0.10 weight percent
ethylene giycol. then the owner or
operator shall reinstitute a daily
sampling program. A reduced sampling
program can be reinstituted if the
requirements specified in this paragraph
are met.
(iii) For those determining compliance
with § 60.852-1 (c)(l)(ii)(C) or
(c)(2)(ii)(C). the owner or operator may
elect to reduce the sampling program to
any 14 consecutive day period once
every two calendar months, if at least
seventeen consecutive 14-day rolling
average concentrations immediately
preceding the reduced sampling program
are each less than 13 weight percent
ethyiene giycol. If the average
concentration obtained over the 14 day
sampling during the reduced test period
exceeds the upper 95 percent confidence
interval calculated from the most recent
test results 14-day hi which no one 14-
day average exceeded 1.8 weight
percent ethylene glycol. then the owner
or operator shall reinstitute a daily
sampling program. A reduced program
can be reinstituted if the requirements
specified in this paragraph are met.
(iv) The upper 95 percent confidence
interval shall be calculated using the
equation:
Ch.'
n(n-t)
where:
X,=daily ethylene glycol concentration for
each day used to calculate each 14-day
rolling average used in test results to
justify implementing the reduced testing
program.
n=numoer of ethylene glycol concentrations.
(2) Measuring an alternative
parameter, such as carbon oxygen
demand or biological oxygen demand,
thai is demonstrated to be directly
proportional to the ethyiene giycoi
concentration. Such parameter shall be
measured during the initial 14-day
performance test during which the
facility is shown to be in compliance
with the ethylene giycoi concentration
standard whereby the ethylene giycol
concentration is determined using the
procedures described in paragraph (j)(l)
of this section. The alternative
parameter shall be measured on a daily
basis and the average value of the
alternative parameter shall be
calculated on a daily basis over a rolling
14-day period of operating davs. Each
daily average value of the alternative
parameter constitutes a performance •
test.
§60.565 Reporting and recordkceptng
requtrwmnte.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall keep
an up-to-date, readily-accessible record
of the following information measured
during each performance test, and shall
include the following information in the
report of the initial performance test in
addition to the written results of such
performance tests as required under
§ 60.8. Where a control device is used to
comply with S 6U562-l(a)(l)(i)(D) only,
a report containing performance test
data need not be submitted, but a report
containing the information in
§ 60565(a)(ll) is required. Where a
boiler or process heater with a design
heat input capacity of 150 million Btu/
hour or greater is used to comply with
S 6U562-l(a). a report containing
performance test data need not he
.submitted, bat a report containing the
information in § 60.565(a)(2)(i) is
required. The same information
specified in this section shall be
submitted in the reports of all
subsequently required performance tests
where either the emission control
efficiency of a combustion device or the
outlet concentration of TOG (minus
methane and ethane) is determined.
(1) When an incinerator is used to
demonstrate compliance with § 60.562-1,
except § 60.562-l(a}(2):
(i) The average firebox temperature of
the incinerator (or the average
temperature upstream and downstream
of the catalyst bed), measured at least
every 15 minutes and averaged over the
performance test period, and
(ii) The percent reduction of TOG
(minus methane and ethane) achieved
by the incinerator, the concentration of
TOG (minus methane and ethane)
(ppmv, by compound) at the outlet of the
control device on a dry basis, or toe
emission rate in terms of kilograms TOC
(minus methane and ethane) per
megagram of product at the outlet of th<;
control device, whichever is
appropriate. If supplemental combustion
air is used, the TOC concentration
corrected to 3 percent oxygen shall be
recorded and reported.
(2) When a boiler or process heater is
used to demonstrate compliance with
§ 60.562-1, except § 60.562-l(a)(2):
(i) A description of the location at
which the vent stream is introduced into
the boiler or process heater, and
(ii) For boiler or process heaters with
a design heat input capacity of less than
150 million Btu/hr, all 3-hour periods of
operation during which the average
combustion temperature was more than
28'C (50'F) below the average
combustion temperature during the most
recent performance test at which
compliance was determined.
(3) When a flare is used to
demonstrate compliance with § 60.562-1,
except § 60.562-l(a)(2):
(i) All visible emission readings, heat
content determination, flow rate
measurements, and exit velocity
determinations made during the
performance test.
(ii) Continuous records of the pilot
flame heat-sensing monitoring, and
(iii) Records of all periods of
operations during which the pilot flame
is absent.
-------
51052
Federal Register / Voi. 55. No. 238 / Tiie9day. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
(4) When an incinerator, boiler, or
process heater is used to demonstrate
compliance with 5 60.562-l(a)(2). a
description of the location at which the
vent stream is introduced into the
incinerator, boiler, or process heater.
(5) When a flare is used to
demonstrate compliance with § 60.564-
Ka)(2):
(i) All visible emission readings made
during the performance test:
(ii) Continuous records of the pilot
flame heat-sensing monitoring, and
(iii) Records of all periods of
operation during which the pilot flame is
absent
(6) When an absorber is the final unit
in a system to demonstrate compliance
with § 60.562-1. except § 60.562-l(a)(2).
the specific gravity (or alternative
parameter that is a measure of the
degree of absorbing liquid saturation, if
approved by the Administrator), and
average temperature, measured at least
every 15 minutes and averaged over the
performance test period, of the
absorbing liquid (both measured while
the vent stream is normally routed and
constituted).
(7) When a condenser is the final unit
in a system to demonstrate compliance
with 5 60.562-1. except 5 60.562-l(a)(2).
the average exit (product side)
temperature, measured at least every 15
minutes and averaged over the
performance test period while the vent
stream is normally routed and
constituted.
(8) Daily measurement and daily
average 14-day rolling average of the
ethylene glycol concentration in the
liquid effluent exiting the vaccum
system servicing the polymerization
reaction section, if an owner or operator
is subject to § 60.562-l(c) (l)(ii)(B) or
(2)(ii)(B). or of the ethylene glycoi
concentration in the cooling water in the
cooling tower, if subject to § 60.562-lfc)
ll
.
(9) When a carbon adsorber is the
final unit in a system to demonstrate
compliance with § 6O562-1, except
§ 6O562-l(a)(2): the concentration level
or reading indicated by the organics
monitoring device at the outlet of the
adsorber, measured at least every 15
minutes and averaged over the
performance test period while the vent
stream is normally routed and
constituted.
(10) When an owner or operator seeks
to comply with the requirements of this
subpart by complying with the
uncontrolled threshold emission rate
cutoff provision in 55 60.560 (d) and (e)
or with the individual stream
exemptions in ) 60.560(g), each process
operation variable (e.g.. pressure.
temperature, type of catalyst) that may
result in an increase in the uncontrolled
emission rate, if 5 60.560(d) or (e) is
applicable, or in an increase in the
uncontrolled annual emissions or the
VOC weight percent, as appropriate, if
5 60.560(g) is applicable, should such
operating variable be changed.
(11) When an owner or operator uses
a control device to comply with
§ 60.564-l(a)(l)(i)(D) alone: all periods
when the control device is not operating.
(b)(l) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
submit with the initial performance test
or. if complying with § 60.564-
1(«)(l)(i)(D). as a separate report an
engineering report describing in detail
the vent system used to vent each
affected vent stream to a control device.
This report shall include all valves and
vent pipes that could vent the stream to
the atmosphere, thereby bypassing the
control device, and identify which
valves are car-sealed opened and which
values are car-sealed closed.
(2) If a vent system containing valves
that could divert the emission stream
away from the control device is used.
each owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall keep for
at least two years up-to-date, readily
accessible continuous records of:
(i) All periods when flow is indicated
if flow indicators are installed under
5 69.563(d)(l).
(ii) All times when maintenance is
performed on car-sealed valves, when
the car seal is broken, and when the
valve position is changed (i.e.. from
open to closed for valves in the vent
piping to the control device and from
closed to open for valves that vent the
stream directly or indirectly to the
atmosphere bypassing the control
device).
(c) Where an incinerator is used to
comply with § 69.562-1. except
§§ 60.562(a)(l)(i)(D) and (a)(2). each
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall keep for
at least 2 years up-to-date, readily
accessible continuous records of:
(1) The temperature measurements
specified under 5 69.563(b)(l).
(2) Records of periods of operation
during which the parameter boundaries
established during the most recent
performance test are exceeded. Periods
of operation during which the parameter
boundaries established during the most
recent performance test are exceeded
are defined as follows:
(i) For noncatalytic incinerators, all 3-
hour periods of operation during which
the average combustion temperature
was more than 28 *C (50 *F> below the
average combustion temperature during
the most recent performance test to
which compliance was demonstrated.
(ii) For catalytic incinerators, all 3-
hour periods of operation during which
the average temperature of the vent
stream immediately before the catalyst
bed is more than 28 °C (50 °F) below the
average temperature of the vent stream
during the most recent performance test
at which compliance was demonstrated.
The owner or operator also shall record
all 3-hour periods of operation during
which the average temperature
difference across the catalyst bed is less
than 80 percent of the average
temperature difference of the device
during the most recent performance test
at which compliance was demonstrated.
(d) Where a boiler or process heater is
used to comply with § 60.562-1. except
§§ 60.562-1 (a)(l)(i)(D) and (a)(2). each
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall keep for
at least 2 years up-to-date, readily
accessible continuous records of:
(1) Where a boiler or process heater
with a heat input design capacity of 150
million Btu/hr or greater is used, all
periods of operation of the boiler or
process heater. (Examples of such
records could include records of steam
use. fuel use. or monitoring data
collected pursuant to other State or
Federal regulatory requirements), and
(2) Where a boiler-or process heater
with a heat input design capacity of less
than 150 million Btu/hr is used, all
periods of operation during which the
parameter boundaries established
during the most recent performance test
are exceeded. Periods of operation
during which the parameter boundaries
established during the most recent
performance test are exceeded are
defined as all 3-hour periods of
operation during which the average
combustion temperature was more than
28 °C (50 'F) below the average
combustion temperature during the most
recent performance test at which
compliance was demonstrated.
(e) Where a flare is used to comply
with § 60.562-1. except 5 60.562-
l(a)(l)(i)(D). each owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall keep for at least 2 years up-to-date.
readily accessible continuous records of:
(1) The flare or pilot light flame heat
sensing monitoring specified under
§ 60.563(b)(2). and
(2) All periods of operations in which
the flare or pilot flame, as appropriate, is
absent
(f) Where an adsorber, condenser.
absorber, or a control device other than
a flare, incinerator, boiler, or process
heater is used to comply with § 60.562-1
except § 60.562-l(a)(l)(i)(D). each owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall keep for at least 2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday. December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations 51053
years up-to-date, readily-accessible
continuous records of the penods of
operation during which the parameter
boundaries established during the most
recent performance test are exceeded.
Where an owner or operator seeks to
comply with § 60.562-1. periods of
operation during which the parameter
boundaries established during the most
recent performance tests are exceeded
are defined as follows:
(1) Where an absorber is the final unit
in a system:
(i) All 3-hour periods of operation
during which the average absorbing
liquid temperature was more than 11 "C
(20 *F) above the average absorbing
liquid temperature during the most
recent performance test and
(ii) All 3-hour periods of operation
during which the average absorbing
liquid specific gravity was more than 0.1
unit above, or more than 0.1 unit below,
the average absorbing liquid specific
Brevity during the most recent
performance test (unless monitoring of
an alternative parameter than is a
measure of the degree of absorbing
liquid saturation is approved by the
Administrator, in which case he or she
will define appropriate parameter
boundaries and periods of operation
during which they are exceeded).
(2) Where a condenser is the final unit
in a system, all 3-hour periods of
operation during which the-average
condenser operating temperature was
more than 6 'C (10 'F) above the average
operating temperature during the most
recent performance test.
(3) Where a carbon adsorber is the
final unit in a system, all 3-hour periods
of operation during which the average
organic concentration level in the
carbon adsorber gases is more than 20
percent greater than the exhaust gas
concentration level or reading measured
by the orgnnics monitoring system
during the most recent performance test.
(g) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility subject to the provisions
of this subpart and seeking to
demonstrate compliance with 5 60.562-1
shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible
records of:
(1) Any changes in production
capacity, feedstock type, or catalyst
type, or of any replacement removal or
addition of product recovery equipment;
and
(2) The results of any performance test
performed pursuant to the procedures
specified by 5 80.564.
(h) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility that seeks to comply
with the requirements of this subpart by
complying with the uncontrolled
threshold emission rate cutoff provision
in 55 60.560 (d) and (e) or with the
individual stream exemptions in
5 60.560(8) shall keep for at least 2 years
up-to-date, readily accessible records of
any change in process operation that
increases the uncontrolled emission rate
of the process line in which the affected
facility is located, if § 60.560 (d) or (e) is
applicable, or that increase the
uncontrolled annual emissions or the
VOC weight percent of the individual
stream, if 5 60.560(g) is applicable.
(i) Each owner and operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart is exempt
from 5 60.7(c) of the General Provisions.
(j) The Administrator will specify
appropriate reporting and recordkeeping
requirements where the owner or
operator of an affected facility complies
with the standards specified under
§ 60.562-1 other than as provided under
5 60.565 (a) through (e).
(k) Each owner or operator that seeks
to comply wuh the requirements of this
subpart by complying with the
uncontrolled threshold emission rate
cutoff provision of §5 60.560 (d) and (e),
the individual stream exemptions of
5 60.560(g), or the requirements of
§ 60.562-1 snail submit to the
Administrator semiannual reports of the
following recorded information, as
applicable. The initial report shall be
submitted within 6 months after the
initial stort-up date.
(1) Exceedances of monitored
parameters recorded under §5 60.535 (c),
(d)(2). and (f).
(2) All periods recorded under
8 e0.565(b) when the vent stream has
been diverted from the control device.
(3) All periods recorded under
§ 80.S65(d) when the boiler or process
heater was not operating.
(4) All periods recorded undar
§ 60.565(e) in which the flare or piiol
fiame was absent.
(5) All periods recorded under
§ 60.565(a)(8) when the 14-day rolling
average exceeded the standard specified
in § 60.562-Kc) (l)(ii)(B). (l)(ii)(C).
I2)(ii)(B). or (2)(ii)(Q. as applicable.
(6) Any change in process operations
that increases the uncontrolled emission
rate of the process line in which the
affected facility is located, as recorded
in 5 60.565(h). "
(7) Any chance in process operations
that increases the uncontrolled annual
emissions or the VOC weight percent of
the individual stream, as recorded in
§ 60.565(h).
(1) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
notify the Administrator of the specific
provisions of $ 60.562. $ 60.560(d). or
5 80560(6). as applicable, with which
the owner or operator has elected to
comply. Notification shall be submitted
with the notification of initial startup
required by 5 60.7(a)(3). If an owner or
operator elects at a later date to use an
alternative provision of § 60.562 with
which he or she will comply or becomes
subject to 5 60.562 for the first time (i.e.,
the owner or operator can no longer
meet the requirements of this subpart by
complying with the uncontrolled
threshold emission rate cutoff provision
in 5 60.560 (d) or (e)). then the owner or
operator shall notify the Administrator
90 days before implementing a change
and, upon implementing a change, a
performance test shall be performed us
specified in § 60.564.
(m) The requirements of this
subsection remain in force until and
unless EPA. in delegating enforcement
authority to a State under section 111(::)
of the Act, approves alternative
reporting requirements or means of
compliance surveillance adooted b--
such State. In that event, affected
sources within the State will be reiifiveij
of the obligation to comply with this
subsection, provided that they comply
with the requirements established bv the
State.
5 60.566 Delegation o< authority.
(a) In delegating implementation ami
enforcement authority to a State under
section lll(c) of the Act. the authon ty
contained in paragraph (b) of this
section shall be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to H
State.
(b) Authority which will not be
delegated to States: § 60.562-2(c).
3. Section 60.171 a) is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(6). (a!(3fi). and
(a)(40l and by adding paragrapns (a 1(601
and (a)(6i) to read as follows:
§ 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
• • • • •
(a)'*'
(6) ASTM D1948-77. Standard Method
for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas
Chromatography, IBR approved for
55 60.45(f){5)(i), 60.18(f).'e0.614(d)(2)rii),
60.614(d)(4), 60.664(d)(2)(ii). 60.664(d|(4|
and 60.564(f).
(38) ASTM D2382-76. Heat of
Combustion of Hydrocarbon Fuels by
Bomb Calorimeter [High-Precision
Method], IBR approved for §§ 60.18(0,
60.485(g). 60.814(d)(4}, 60.664(d)(4), anil
60.564(f)-
(40) ASTM D86-78, Distillation of
Petroleum Products, IBR approved for
§ 60.593(d), § 60.633(h), and § 60.562-
2(d).
-------
51054 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11. 1990 / Rules Regulations
(60) ASTM D2908-74. Standard
Practice for Measuring Volatile Organic
Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection
Gas Chromatography, IBR approved for
§ 605640).
(61) ASTM D3370-76. Standard
Practices for Sampling Water. IBR
approved for 5 80.564(j).
[FR Doc. 90-20755 Tiled 12-10-90: 8:45 am|
Jl J
-------
O.S. Environmental Protection Agw
Region 5, Ubfwy (PL-12D
77 West Jackson Boulevard. IZth Ftoaf
Chicago, H. 60604-3590
------- |