[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 23, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33550-33633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12754]
[[Page 33549]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Pesticide
Active Ingredient Production; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 23, 1999 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 33550]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
[AD-FRL-6345-5]
RIN-2060-AE83
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the pesticide active ingredient
(PAI) production source category under section 112 of the Clean Air Act
as amended (CAA or Act). The intent of the standards is to reduce
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from existing and new
facilities that manufacture organic PAI used in herbicides,
insecticides, and fungicides. The standards protect human health and
the environment by reducing HAP emissions to the level corresponding to
the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) through the use of
pollution prevention measures and control strategies. The major HAP
emitted by facilities covered by this rule include toluene, methanol,
methyl chloride, and hydrogen chloride (HCl). All of these pollutants
can cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects following exposure.
The rule is estimated to reduce total HAP emissions from existing
facilities by 2,500 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (2,755 tons per year
(tons/yr)), a reduction of 65 percent from the baseline emission level.
Because many of these pollutants are also volatile organic compounds
(VOC), which are precursors to ambient ozone, the rule will aid in the
reduction of tropospheric ozone. The emission reductions achieved by
these standards, when combined with the emission reductions achieved by
other similar standards, will achieve the primary goal of the CAA,
which is to ``enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as
to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of
its population.''
The July 16, 1992 source category list included an agricultural
chemicals industry group that contained 10 source categories. Today's
final rule groups these 10 agricultural chemicals source categories
into one source category, renames the source category, and adds
additional chemical production processes to the source category.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-95-20, containing supporting
information considered by the EPA in developing the promulgated
standards, is available for public inspection and copying between 8:30
a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room 1500, 1st Floor,
401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this final
rule, contact Mr. Lalit Banker at (919) 541-5420, Organic Chemicals
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. For
information concerning applicability and rule determinations, contact
your State or local representative or the appropriate EPA regional
representatives. For a list of regional representatives, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated entities. Entities potentially
regulated are those which produce PAI's and integral intermediates that
are used in herbicides, insecticides, or fungicides and are located at
facilities that are major sources as defined in section 112 of the CAA.
Regulated categories and entities include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS codes SIC codes Examples of potentially regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................... Typically, 325199 Typically, 2869 Producers of pesticide active
and 32532. and 2879. ingredients that contain organic
compounds and are used in herbicides,
insecticides, or fungicides.
Producers of any integral
intermediate used in the onsite
production of an active ingredient used
in an herbicide, insecticide, or
fungicide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foregoing table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine
whether your facility, company, business organization, etc., is
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1360 of the rule. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Regional Representatives. The EPA regional representatives are:
Region I
NESHAP (MACT) Coordinator, U.S. EPA Region I, John F. Kennedy Federal
Building, One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02114-2023, (617) 918-1111
Region II
Umesh Dholakia, U.S. EPA Region II, 290 Broadway Street, New York, NY
10007-1866, (212) 637-4023 (Umesh)
Region III
Bernard Turlinski, U.S. EPA Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,
Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 566-2150
Region IV
Lee Page, U.S. EPA Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street
SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, (404) 562-9131
Region V
Bruce Varner, U.S. EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL
60604-3507, (312) 886-6793
Region VI
Robert Todd, U.S. EPA Region VI, First Interstate Bank Tower @ Fountain
Place, 1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733,
(214) 665-2156
Region VII
Richard Tripp, U.S. EPA Region VII, Air Toxics Coordinator, 726
Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7566
Region VIII
Ann Marie Patrie, U.S. EPA Region VIII, Air Toxics Coordinator, 999
18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 312-6524
Region IX
Nahid Zoueshtiagh, U.S. EPA Region IX, Air Division-6, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1261
[[Page 33551]]
Region X
Andrea Wullenweber, U.S. EPA Region X, Air Toxics Coordinator, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-8760
Background Documentation. The following is a listing of background
documents pertaining to this rulemaking. The complete title, EPA
publication number, publication date, docket item number, and the
abbreviated descriptive title used to refer to the document throughout
this notice are included.
(1) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production Industry:
Summary of Public Comments and Responses. EPA-453/R-98-011. April 1999.
Docket item No. IV-B-1. Response to Comment Document for Promulgated
Standards.
(2) Pesticide Active Ingredient NESHAP--Basis and Purpose document.
July 1997. Docket item No. III-B-1. Basis and Purpose Document.
(3) Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From the Pesticide Active
Ingredient Production Industry--Supplementary Information Document for
Proposed Standards. July 1997. Docket item No. II-B-21. Supplementary
Information Document.
The response to comment document for the promulgated standards
contains: (1) a summary of all the public comments made on the proposed
rule and the Administrator's response to the comments; and (2) a
summary of the changes made to the rule since proposal. The basis and
purpose document contains much of the rationale for the standards. The
supplementary information document contains a compilation of technical
memoranda.
Electronic Versions of Documents. Electronic versions of documents
from the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) are available for
downloading from EPA's OAR Technology Transfer Network Web site
(TTNWeb). The TTNWeb is a collection of related Web sites containing
information about many areas of air pollution science, technology,
regulation, measurement, and prevention. The TTNWeb is directly
accessible from the Internet via the World Wide Web at the following
address: ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn.'' This preamble and rule are located
under the OAR Policy and Guidance Information Web site, ``http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3main.html,'' under the Federal Register Notices
section. The background documents are located at the same web site,
under the Reports section. If more information on the TTNWeb is needed,
contact the Systems Operator at (919) 541-5384.
Judicial review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of NESHAP is available only by filing 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 final rule. Under section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are the subject of today's
final rule may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. List of Source Categories
A. Initial Source Categories
B. Addition of Other Pesticide Active Ingredients
C. Single Source Category
D. Change of the Source Category Name
II. Background
A. Summary of Considerations Made in Developing this Rule
B. Regulatory Background
III. Authority for NESHAP Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
IV. Summary of Promulgated Standards
A. Source Categories to be Regulated
B. Pollutants to be Regulated and Associated Environmental and
Health Benefits
C. Affected Sources
D. Compliance Dates
E. Process Vent Provisions
F. Storage Vessel Provisions
G. Wastewater Provisions
H. Equipment Leak Provisions
I. Bag Dump and Product Dryer Provisions
J. Heat Exchanger System Provisions
K. Alternative Standard
L. Pollution Prevention Alternative
M. Emissions Averaging Provisions
N. Initial Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
O. Monitoring Requirements
P. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
V. Summary Of Nationwide Impacts
A. Air Impacts
B. Water and Solid Waste Impacts
C. Energy Impacts
D. Cost Impacts
E. Economic Impacts
VI. Major Comments and Changes to the Proposed Standards
A. Applicability Provisions
B. Compliance Dates for New Sources
C. Process Vents Provisions
D. Storage Vessel Provisions
E. Equipment Leak Provisions
F. Wastewater Provisions
G. Bag Dump and Product Dryer Provisions
H. Heat Exchanger Provisions
I. Alternative Standard
J. Pollution Prevention Alternative
K. Emissions Averaging
L. Testing Provisions and Initial Compliance Demonstration
M. Monitoring
N. Recordkeeping and Reporting
O. Miscellaneous
VII. Technical Amendment to 40 CFR Part 9
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Executive Order 12875
D. Executive Order 13084
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility
G. Unfunded Mandates
H. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General Office
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 13045
I. List of Source Categories
Section 112 of the CAA requires that EPA evaluate and control
emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is achieved through promulgation
of emission standards under section 112 (d) and (f) and work practice
and equipment standards under section 112(h) for categories of sources
that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, EPA published an initial list of major
and area source categories to be regulated (57 FR 31576). Today's final
rule adds additional chemical production processes to the agricultural
chemicals industry group, groups the initial and additional source
categories into a single source category, and renames the source
category.
A. Initial Source Categories
Included on the initial source category list were major sources
emitting HAP from 10 categories of agricultural chemicals production;
in addition to being an agricultural chemical, each of these compounds
is also a PAI. One source category on the initial source category list,
butadiene furfural cotrimer (R-11) production, was moved from the
polymers and resins industry group to this industry group on June 4,
1996 (61 FR 28197). The EPA decided it was appropriate to move
butadiene furfural cotrimer (R-11) to the agricultural chemicals
industry group because it is an insecticide commonly used for delousing
cows.
B. Addition of Other Pesticide Active Ingredients
In developing the rule, the EPA identified a number of other PAI
production operations that were not on the initial source category
list. It was determined that production of these compounds is similar
to the production of the compounds in the 11 initial agricultural
chemical source categories. Production of these other PAI's are being
added to the source category list under section 112(c) of the CAA based
on information obtained during the gathering of HAP emission data for
this proposed rule. From this information, it
[[Page 33552]]
was determined that: (1) there are similarities in process operations,
emission characteristics, control device applicability and costs, and
opportunities for pollution prevention of these PAI's with the listed
agricultural chemicals; and (2) the production of these PAI's occurs at
facilities that are major sources. Like the initial agricultural
chemicals, these PAI's are those that are used in herbicides,
insecticides, and fungicides that are registered as end-use products
under section 3 of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA).
C. Single Source Category
In developing the proposed rule, EPA decided not to set MACT for
each individual PAI chemical but, rather, to aggregate all PAI's
together under the same source category. The PAI's that EPA proposes to
include in this source category are all organic PAI's that are used to
produce insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide products. Data gathered
from the PAI production industry indicate that the process equipment,
emission characteristics, and applicable control technologies are
sufficiently similar for the broad group of sources that EPA intends to
regulate under a single set of standards. There are no significant
differences in the types of control technologies applicable to
controlling emissions from the various PAI processes. Common HAP
control technologies are applicable to the production operations at all
of the facilities. Based on these factors, EPA concluded that
determining MACT for each individual PAI is not warranted.
The EPA believes it is technically feasible to regulate emissions
from a variety of PAI processes by a single set of emission standards.
Similar to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) for the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI), separate requirements are
proposed for process vents, storage vessels, equipment leaks, and
wastewater HAP emission points (often referred to as planks). The set
of standards also establishes different control requirements based on
distinctions in the size of the emission points. Variability in the
characteristics of the production processes for each individual PAI
chemical may affect the quantity of HAP emissions. This variability has
been addressed by incorporating cutoffs for uncontrolled emissions in
the standards for individual planks.
Several other reasons support the development of a single set of
emission standards for a group of PAI processes. Many of these PAI's
are only produced at a single facility or by a single company. In
addition, data indicate that many of the PAI processes that EPA is
proposing to regulate by this set of standards are collocated within
individual facilities; at some facilities, multiple PAI's are also
produced in the same equipment (i.e., flexible operating equipment).
Facilities with collocated PAI manufacturing could more easily comply
with a single set of emission standards than with individual standards
for each of the collocated processes. Several industry representatives
also expressed interest in a generic regulation that would specify
consistent requirements for a wide range of processes.
Another justification for developing a single set of emission
standards to regulate production of a variety of PAI's is that it is
more efficient and less costly for EPA to develop a single standard
than to develop separate standards for several individually listed
source categories which have similar emission characteristics and
applicable control technologies. A single set of standards for PAI
manufacturing will ensure that process equipment with comparable HAP
emissions and control technologies are subject to consistent emission
control requirements. In addition, compliance and enforcement
activities would be more efficient and less costly.
D. Change of the Source Category Name
Under today's final rule, EPA is revising the source category list
published under section 112(c) of the CAA to add a source category
called ``Pesticide Active Ingredient Production'' and to subsume the 11
initial, separate source categories into that category, as well as to
include other identified chemical production processes which are major
sources of HAP. All 11 agricultural chemicals on the initial source
category list are PAI's; all of the other chemicals identified during
data gathering that have been added to the list are also PAI's. Because
these other PAI's have been added to the source category list and
because they have been grouped with the initial 11 agricultural
chemicals, which are also PAI's, the EPA decided that it is appropriate
to change the title of this NESHAP source category. Effective by this
notice, EPA is changing the title of the source category to ``pesticide
active ingredient production.'' This change is appropriate to avoid
confusion regarding the definition of the source category and to aid in
distinguishing the types of air emission sources addressed by this
source category.
II. Background
A. Summary of Considerations Made in Developing This Rule
The CAA was created in part ``to protect and enhance the quality of
the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (CAA section
101(b)(1)). Section 112(b) of the CAA lists 189 HAP believed to cause
adverse health or environmental effects. (Through rulemaking, EPA
subsequently delisted caprolactam). Section 112(d) of the CAA requires
that emission standards be promulgated for all categories and
subcategories of major sources of these HAP and for many smaller
``area'' sources listed for regulation under section 112(c) in
accordance with the schedules listed under section 112(c). Major
sources are defined as those that emit or have the potential to emit at
least 10 tons/yr of any single HAP or 25 tons/yr of any combination of
HAP.
On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), EPA published the initial list of
categories of sources slated for regulation. As noted above, this list
included 10 categories of Agricultural Chemicals Production; with
today's final rule, these source categories are combined into a single
category called Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, and additional
PAI processes are added to the source category. The statute requires
emissions standards for the listed source categories to be promulgated
between November 1992 and November 2000. On December 3, 1993, the EPA
published a schedule for promulgating these standards (58 FR 83841).
In the CAA, Congress specified that each standard for major sources
must require the maximum reduction in emissions of HAP that EPA
determines is achievable considering cost, health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. In essence, these MACT standards
would ensure that all major sources of air toxic emissions achieve the
level of control already being achieved by the better controlled and
lower emitting sources in each category. This approach provides
assurance to citizens that each major source of toxic air pollution
will be required to effectively control its emissions.
Available emissions data show that pollutants that are listed in
section 112(b)(1) of the CAA and are emitted in substantial amounts by
the PAI production source category include toluene, methanol, methyl
chloride, and HCl. The PAI production source category also emits small
amounts of other listed pollutants including benzene, benzyl chloride,
1,3-butadiene,
[[Page 33553]]
carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, ethylbenzene, ethyl chloride,
ethylene dichloride, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
hexachloro ethane, hexane, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene,
trichlorobenzene, trichloroethylene, xylenes, acetonitrile,
Captan, formaldehyde, glycol ethers, hydroquinone, methyl
ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl isocyanate, napthalene,
phosgene, chlorine, and hydrogen cyanide. Some of these pollutants have
been classified as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens when
inhaled, and all can cause reversible and irreversible toxic effects
following sufficient exposure. These effects include respiratory and
skin irritation, neurological disorders (e.g., dizziness, headache, and
narcosis), effects upon the eye (including blindness), damage to organs
(e.g., liver, kidney, and testes), and in extreme cases, death.
Emissions of these pollutants will be reduced by implementation of
today's final rule.
The list of HAP in section 112(b) of the CAA includes 22 HAP
compounds (or classes of compounds) that have been reported to be
possible endocrine disruptors. Many of these 22 HAP are PAI's, or are
used in the production of PAI's, and, thus, could possibly be emitted
from PAI manufacturing plants. In a survey of 20 plants producing
PAI's, EPA found only one of these 22 HAP in the actual emissions of
these plants. The quantity of this one potential endocrine disruptor
was very low relative to the total HAP emissions reported at the 20
surveyed plants.
Based on published chemical property data, the vapor pressures of
the possible endocrine disruptors tend to be low relative to the
solvents and raw materials used in the PAI manufacturing processes (the
lower the vapor pressure, the less material that will volatilize). In
addition, based on a PAI industry buyer's guide, the possible endocrine
disruptors that are also PAI's are each produced by only one or a small
number of companies. As a result, the HAP that are possible endocrine
disruptors are likely emitted in small quantities, if at all, relative
to the HAP listed above. The EPA is implementing a program under the
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and Safe Drinking Water Act to
screen pesticides and other chemicals for their potential to disrupt
the endocrine system of humans and wildlife. The EPA will assess the
risk to humans and wildlife of chemicals identified in this program as
endocrine disruptors and take appropriate risk management action. The
EPA's risk management strategy could include the development of risk
based emission standards under the CAA.
The alternatives considered in the development of this regulation,
including those alternatives selected as standards for new and existing
sources, are based on process and emissions data received from 20 of
the estimated 78 existing facilities that are subject to today's final
rule. Regulatory alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor (the
minimum control level required by the CAA) were selected when they were
judged to be reasonable, considering cost, non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
Included in today's final rule are methods for determining initial
compliance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that
affected sources will comply with the standards both initially and over
time. However, the EPA has made every effort to simplify the
requirements in the rule. The EPA has also attempted to maintain
consistency with existing regulations by either incorporating text from
existing regulations or referencing the applicable sections.
Representatives from other interested EPA offices and programs,
State environmental agency personnel, and industry participated in the
regulatory development process as MACT partnership members. The
partnership members were given opportunities to review and comment on
the regulation prior to proposal. Industry, regulatory authorities,
environ mental groups, and other interested parties provided comment on
drafts of the proposed standards and provided additional information
during the public comment period.
B. Regulatory Background
Today's final rule implements section 112(d) of the CAA, which
requires the Administrator to regulate emissions of HAP listed in
section 112(b) of the CAA. The intent of this rule is to protect the
public health and the environment by requiring new and existing major
sources to reduce generation of emissions by using pollution prevention
strategies or to control emissions to the level achievable by the MACT.
In 1994, EPA promulgated National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Certain Processes Subject to the Negotiated
Regulation for Equipment Leaks (59 FR 19587). Processes producing
Captafol, Captan, Chlorothalonil, Dacthal, and
TordonTM acid that use butadiene, carbon tetrachloride,
methylene chloride, or ethylene dichloride as a reactant or process
solvent, are subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks.
Today's final rule requires control of leaking components that are
currently not subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks,
but that contain and/or transport HAP and are associated with processes
in this source category. Today's final rule also allows sources subject
to the Negotiated Regulation to comply with the leak detection and
repair (LDAR) provisions of this rule.
III. Authority for NESHAP Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
Section 112 of the CAA gives the EPA the authority to establish
national standards to reduce air emissions from sources that emit one
or more HAP. Section 112(b) contains a list of HAP to be regulated by
NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the Agency to use this pollutant list to
develop and publish a list of source categories for which NESHAP will
be developed; this list was published in the Federal Register on July
16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The Agency must list all known categories and
subcategories of ``major sources'' that emit one or more of the listed
HAP. A major source is defined in section 112(a) as any stationary
source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area
and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit in the
aggregate, considering controls, 10 tons/yr or more of any one HAP or
25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP.
Under section 112(c)(1) of the CAA, the Administrator has the
authority to establish additional source categories as appropriate. Ten
(revised to 11) categories of agricultural chemicals were included on
the initial list. Because the processes, HAP emissions, control
technologies, and control costs for these 11 agricultural chemicals are
similar to the processes, HAP emissions, control technologies, and
control costs for other PAI's, the Administrator included other PAI's
on the source category list and grouped the agricultural chemicals and
the PAI's together into one source category.
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both
new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out
in section 112(d) of the CAA. The statute requires the standards to
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP
[[Page 33554]]
that is achievable for new or existing sources. This control level is
based on the MACT. The selection of MACT must reflect consideration of
the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements for control
levels more stringent than the floor (described below).
The MACT floor is the least stringent level for MACT standards. For
new sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory ``shall
not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the
Administrator'' (CAA section 112(d)(3)). Existing source standards can
be no less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by
the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for categories
and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources for categories or
subcate gories with fewer than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing sources is
termed the ``MACT floor,'' and the ``average'' is based on a measure of
central tendency such as the arithmetic mean, median, or mode.
In establishing the floors for this rulemaking, EPA designed its
information collection approach to reduce the paperwork burden on the
industry. Rather than collect detailed information from all 78 existing
sources, EPA narrowed its detailed collection request. Through
literature reviews, State contacts, and plant visits, EPA identified
companies which appeared to have the best controlled plants and sent
data collection requests only to those companies. In identifying those
companies, EPA also considered the need to include a variety of process
and product types in the survey. Data for the PAI production industry
were collected from 20 facilities that are major sources. In addition,
many of those facilities achieve high emissions reductions, produce a
variety of PAI's, and use a variety of production processes. As the
standards for existing sources are based on the best-performing 12
percent of sources, the number of best-performing sources for this
source category is nine facilities (i.e., 12 percent of 78 facilities).
The best-performing nine facilities are included in the 20 facilities
surveyed.
After the nine best performing sources in the source category were
identified, the ``average emission limitation achieved'' was determined
for each of the four types of emission points at these sources. The
arithmetic mean was evaluated first for each type of emission point. If
this value corresponded with the level of control achieved by a known
technology, it was selected as the MACT floor. If the value did not
correspond with the level of control achieved by a known technology,
the median was evaluated. In all cases where the median was evaluated,
it was selected as the MACT floor because it either corresponded with
the level of control achieved by a known technology, or it was no
control.
IV. Summary of Promulgated Standards
This section describes the source category and pollutants that are
regulated, defines an affected source, and summarizes the final
standards for each type of emission point. A pollution prevention
alternative is also summarized in this section.
A. Source Categories to be Regulated
The final standards regulate HAP emissions from facilities that are
major sources and produce PAI's for use in insecticide, herbicide, or
fungicide products. These standards apply to existing sources as well
as new sources. The final standards for existing and new sources are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.--Standards for New and Existing PAI Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission source Applicability Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process vents............... Existing:
Processes having 90% for organic HAP
uncontrolled per process or to
organic HAP outlet
emissions 0.15 Mg/yr. 20 ppmv
TOC.
Processes having 94% for HCl and
uncontrolled HCl chlorine per
and chlorine process or to
emissions 6.8 Mg/yr. chlorine
concentration of
20 ppmv.
Individual process 98% gaseous organic
vents meeting flow HAP control per
and mass emissions vent or 20 ppmv TOC
gaseous organic HAP outlet limit.
emissions
controlled to less
than 90% on or
after November 10,
1997.
New:
Processes having 98% for organic HAP
uncontrolled per process or 20 ppmv TOC.
emissions 0.15 Mg/yr.
Processes having 94% for HCl and
uncontrolled HCl chlorine per
and chlorine process or to
emissions 6.8 Mg/yr and concentration of
<191 Mg/yr. 20 ppmv
HCl and chlorine.
Processes having 99% for HCl and
uncontrolled HCl chlorine per
and chlorine process or to
emissions 191 Mg/yr. concentration of
20 ppmv
HCl and chlorine.
Storage vessels............. Existing: 75 m\3\ capacity roof, reduce HAP by
and vapor pressure 95% per vessel, or
3.45 kPa. to outlet
concentration of
20 ppmv
TOC.
New: 38 Same as for existing
m\3\ capacity and sources.
vapor pressure 16.5 kPa.
75 m\3\
capacity and vapor
pressure 3.45 kPa
Wastewater a................ Existing: Process Reduce concentration
wastewater with 10,000 ppmw compounds to <50
Table 9 compounds ppmw (or other
at any flowrate or options).
1,000
ppmw Table 9
compounds at 10 L/min,
and maintenance
wastewater with HAP
load 5.3
Mg per discharge
event.
New:
Same criteria as for Reduce concentration
existing sources. of total Table 9
compounds to <50
ppmw (or other
options).
Total HAP load in 99% reduction of
wastewater POD Table 9 compounds
streams 2,100 Mg/yr.
Equipment leaks............. Subpart H........... Subpart H with minor
changes, including
monitoring
frequencies
consistent with the
proposed CAR.
[[Page 33555]]
Product dryers and bag dumps Dryers used to dry Particulate matter
PAI that is also a concentration not
HAP, and bag dumps to exceed 0.01 gr/
used to introduce dscf.
feedstock that is a
solid and a HAP.
Heat exchange systems....... Each heat exchange Monitoring and leak
system used to cool repair program as
process equipment in HON.
in PAI
manufacturing
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Table 9 is listed in the appendix to subpart G of 40 CFR part 63.
B. Pollutants to be Regulated and Associated Environmental and Health
Benefits
Pesticide Active Ingredients production facilities emit an
estimated 3,850 Mg/yr of organic and inorganic HAP. Organic HAP include
methyl chloride, methanol, and toluene as well as other compounds.
Hydrogen chloride is the inorganic HAP emitted in the greatest
quantities by this industry. The final rule reduces overall HAP
emissions from PAI facilities by 65 percent.
Some of these pollutants are considered to be carcinogenic, and all
can cause toxic health effects following exposure, including nausea,
headaches, and possible reproductive effects. The extent and degree to
which the human health effects may be experienced is dependent upon (1)
the ambient concentration observed in the area (e.g., as influenced by
emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); (2) the
frequency of and duration of exposures; (3) characteristics of exposed
individuals (e.g., genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and
lifestyle) which vary significantly with the population; and (4)
pollutant specific characteristics (toxicity, half-life in the
environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence).
Most of the organic HAP emitted from this industry are classified
as VOC. The emission controls for HAP will reduce non-HAP VOC emissions
as well. Emissions of VOC have been associated with a variety of health
and welfare impacts. Volatile organic compound emissions, together with
nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone.
Exposure to ambient ozone is responsible for a series of public health
impacts, such as alterations in lung function, changes in lung
structure, and aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Welfare
impacts from exposure to ambient ozone include damage to selected
commercial timber species and economic losses for commercially valuable
crops such as soybeans and cotton.
In addition to being listed under section 112(b)(1) for the
purposes of this rulemaking, HCl is listed under section 112(r) of the
CAA. The intent of Section 112(r), Prevention of Accidental Releases,
is to focus on chemicals that pose a significant hazard to the
community should an accident occur, to prevent their accidental
release, and to minimize consequences should a release occur. Hydrogen
chloride, along with the other substances listed under section
112(r)(3), is listed because it is known to cause, or may be reasonably
anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human
health or the environment (59 FR 4478, January 31, 1994). Sources that
handle hydrogen chloride in greater quantities than the established
threshold quantity under section 112(r)(5) will be subject to the risk
management program requirements under section 112(r)(7) (58 FR 54190,
October 20, 1993).
In essence, the MACT standards mandated by the CAA will ensure that
all major sources of air toxic emissions achieve the level of control
already being achieved by the better controlled and lower emitting
sources in each category. This approach provides assurance to citizens
that each major source of toxic air pollution will be required to
effectively control its emissions. In addition, the emission reductions
achieved by today's final standards, when combined with the reductions
achieved by other MACT standards, will contribute to achieving the
primary goal of the CAA, which is to ``protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (CAA section
101(b)(1)).
C. Affected Sources
The affected source for the purpose of this regulation is the
facility-wide collection of PAI manufacturing process units (PAI
process units) that process, use, or produce HAP, and are located at a
plant site that is a major source, as defined in section 112(a) of the
CAA. An affected source also includes waste management units, heat
exchange systems, and cooling towers that are associated with the PAI
process units. A PAI process unit includes: the processing equipment;
connected piping and ducts; associated storage vessels; and components
such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices,
sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves,
connectors, and instrumentation systems that are assembled at a
facility for the purpose of manufacturing a PAI or integral
intermediate.
The final rule specifies that new source requirements apply to an
affected source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after November 10, 1997, or to any single PAI process unit that meets
the following conditions: (1) It is not part of a process unit group;
(2) construction commenced after November 10, 1997; and (3) it has the
potential to emit 10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of combined
HAP. The EPA expects that reconfiguration of processing equipment in a
process unit group at an existing source generally will not meet the
definition of construction or reconstruction. Therefore,
reconfiguration generally will not trigger new source requirements.
D. Compliance Dates
Existing sources must comply within 3 years after June 23, 1999.
New or reconstructed affected sources must comply on June 23, 1999 or
startup, whichever is later.
E. Process Vent Provisions
The final standards require existing sources to reduce organic HAP
emissions from each process with uncontrolled organic HAP emissions
greater than or equal to 0.15 Mg/yr. The reduction may be either 90
percent from the sum of all vents within the process or to a total
organic carbon (TOC) outlet concentration of 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv). If some vents within a process are controlled to the
outlet concentration limits, the 90 percent reduction requirement
applies to the sum of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from all other
vents in the process. Additionally, the final rule requires organic HAP
emissions from any individual vent that meets certain annual emissions
and flowrate criteria to be reduced by 98 weight percent or
[[Page 33556]]
to outlet concentrations of 20 ppmv as TOC; the 90 percent requirement
would apply to the sum of organic HAP emissions from all other vents in
the process. (Those process vents achieving 90 percent control prior to
November 10, 1997 are not required to meet the 98 percent control
requirement.)
The final standards also require existing sources to reduce HCl and
chlorine emissions by 94 percent from each process or to an outlet
concentration of 20 ppmv if the sum of uncontrolled HCl and chlorine
emissions from all vents in the process is greater than or equal to 6.8
Mg/yr.
New sources are required to meet various process-based control
levels. Specifically, for each process where the sum of the
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from all vents in the process is
greater than or equal to 0.15 Mg/yr, the final standards require an
overall 98 percent reduction in the organic HAP emissions per process.
Alternatively, the final standards require that control devices meet
outlet concentrations of 20 ppmv as TOC, and the 98 percent reduction
requirement applies to the sum of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions
from all other vents in the process.
The final standards also require new sources to reduce HCl and
chlorine emissions by either a specified percentage or to an outlet
concentration not to exceed 20 ppmv. If the uncontrolled HCl and
chlorine emissions from the sum of all vents within a process are
greater than or equal to 6.8 Mg/yr and less than 191 Mg/yr, the final
standards require a reduction of at least 94 percent from the sum of
all vents that are not controlled to 20 ppmv. If the uncontrolled HCl
and chlorine emissions from the sum of all vents within a process are
greater than 191 Mg/yr, the final standards require a reduction of at
least 99 percent from the sum of all vents that are not controlled to
20 ppmv.
The final rule also contains an alternative standard for process
vents that is similar to the outlet concentration options described
above. The initial compliance determination and the monitoring
provisions differ from the above outlet concentration options. See
section IV.K for additional details regarding the alternative standard.
F. Storage Vessel Provisions
The final standards require both existing and new sources to
control organic HAP emissions from storage vessels that have a capacity
greater than or equal to 75 cubic meters (m\3\) and HAP vapor pressure
greater than or equal to 3.45 Kilopascals (kPa). New sources are also
required to control organic HAP emissions from storage vessels with
capacities greater than or equal to 38 m\3\ and less than 75 m\3\ and
vapor pressure greater than or equal to 16.5 kPa. For all of the
affected storage vessels, emissions must be controlled by one of the
following methods:
(1) An internal floating roof with proper seals and fittings;
(2) An external floating roof with proper seals and fittings;
(3) An external floating roof converted to an internal floating
roof with proper seals and fittings; or
(4) A closed vent system with a control device that is 95 percent
efficient or reduces organic HAP to outlet concentrations of less than
or equal to 20 ppmv as TOC.
Following comments received on the proposed storage vessel
standards, the MACT floor for storage vessels was revised. For the
final standards, the storage vessel cutoffs are based on the vessel
capacity and the vapor pressure of the stored material rather than the
capacity and uncontrolled emissions. See section VI.D for additional
information on the changes made to the storage vessel standard.
The final rule also contains an alternative standard for storage
vessels that is similar to the outlet concentration options described
above. The initial compliance determination and the monitoring
provisions differ from the above outlet concentration options. See
section IV.K for additional details regarding the alternative standard.
G. Wastewater Provisions
The wastewater provisions are similar to the HON wastewater
provisions (subpart G of 40 CFR part 63), except for maintenance
wastewater and new source requirements. The final standards require
existing and new sources to control Group 1 wastewater streams. Under
the final standards, existing and new sources are required to determine
Group 1 status for both process wastewater streams and maintenance
wastewater streams. A process wastewater stream is a Group 1 stream for
compounds listed in Table 9 of the appendix to subpart G of 40 CFR part
63 (``Table 9 compounds'') if:
(1) The total annual average concentration of Table 9 compounds is
greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw at any flowrate; or
(2) The total annual average concentration of Table 9 compounds is
greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw and the annual average flow rate is
greater than or equal to 10 liters per minute (L/min).
A maintenance wastewater stream is a Group 1 stream if the mass of
Table 9 compounds in an individual maintenance wastewater discharge
exceeds 5.3 Mg.
The final standards require existing sources with Group 1 process
and maintenance wastewater streams for Table 9 compounds to do one of
the following:
(1) Reduce the concentration of Table 9 compounds to less than 50
ppmw;
(2) Use a steam stripper with specific design and operating
requirements;
(3) Reduce the mass flow rate of Table 9 compounds by at least 99
percent;
(4) Reduce the mass flow rate of Table 9 compounds by an amount
equal to or greater than the fraction removed (Fr) value in Table 9;
(5) If a source using biotreatment for at least one wastewater
stream that is Group 1 for Table 9 compounds, achieve a required mass
removal greater than or equal to 95 percent for Table 9 compounds; or
(6) Treat with permitted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) units or by discharging to a permitted underground injection
well.
The final standards require new sources with Group 1 wastewater
streams for Table 9 compounds to control Table 9 compounds to the same
level required for existing sources. In addition, new sources with a
total mass flow rate from the source of 2,100 Mg/yr or more of Table 9
compounds would be required to reduce the mass flow rate of Table 9
compounds from all wastewater streams by 99 percent. This difference
from the HON was needed because the MACT floor for new sources is more
stringent than the provisions in the HON for facilities that exceed
this mass flow rate cutoff.
A source is exempted from the wastewater standards if:
(1) The total mass flow rate of Table 9 compounds in Group 1
streams is less than 1 Mg/yr; or
(2) If the total mass flow rate of Table 9 compounds in untreated
Group 1 wastewater streams and in Group 1 wastewater streams that are
treated to levels less stringent than the levels required by the
standard is less than 1 Mg/yr.
H. Equipment Leak Provisions
Today's final rule contains revisions to the proposed equipment
leak requirements that were based on subpart H (of the HON rule). The
final rule contains changes to the standards for valves and connectors
in gas/vapor service and light liquid service as
[[Page 33557]]
follows: the requirement to implement a quality improvement program and
all references to 40 CFR Sec. 63.175 have been removed; an allowance
for monitoring every 2 years for those processes with less than 0.25
percent leaking valves has been added; an allowance for valve
subgrouping was also added; the equation used to determine the percent
of leaking valves in a process was changed to eliminate the optional
credit for valves removed, and, the rolling average of leaking valves
was revised so that it is calculated as an average of the last three
monitoring periods for annual or biannual monitoring programs. The
monitoring schedule for connectors in gas/ vapor service and light
liquid service was also revised to allow for decreased monitoring for
those components with the lowest leak rates. If less than 0.25 percent
of the connectors in a group of processes are leaking, the monitoring
frequency is now once every 8 years. These changes, which are
consistent with the proposed consolidated air rule (CAR), are designed
to reduce the recordkeeping requirements while achieving the same level
of control as under subpart H. The standard for existing sources is
based on a regulatory alternative more stringent than the floor, and
the standard for new sources is based on the MACT floor for new
sources.
I. Bag Dump and Product Dryer Provisions
Under the final standards, particulate matter emissions are not
allowed to exceed 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)
from both (1) product dryers that are used to dry a PAI (or integral
intermediate) that is also a HAP, and (2) bag dumps that are used to
introduce a feedstock that is a solid material and a HAP. The standard
applies to both existing and new sources.
J. Heat Exchanger System Provisions
The final standards apply to each heat exchange system that is
associated with the affected source. The standards require a monitoring
program to detect leakage of organic HAP from the process into the
cooling water. The final standards refer to the monitoring program in
the HON (Sec. 63.104 of subpart F).
K. Alternative Standard
As an alternative to the requirements for process vents and storage
vessels that are discussed in sections IV.E and F, respectively, the
emissions from any process vent may be routed to a control device
achieving outlet concentrations of less than or equal to 20 ppmv TOC
(calibrated on methane or the predominant HAP) and less than or equal
to 20 ppmv HCl and chlorine. Initial compliance with the alternative
standard is achieved when the outlet concentrations for TOC are
demonstrated using a TOC monitor that meets the requirements of
Performance Specification 8 or 9 of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60.
Monitoring to demonstrate ongoing compliance is also conducted with the
TOC monitor. Initial and ongoing compliance with the alternative
standard for HCl and chlorine is achieved when the outlet
concentrations are demonstrated using Method 26.
L. Pollution Prevention Alternative
For existing sources, the promulgated rule also includes a
pollution prevention (P2) alternative standard that meets the
requirements of the MACT standards and can be implemented in lieu of
the requirements described above. The P2 alternative standard provides
a way for facilities to comply with the MACT standards by reducing
overall consumption of HAP from their processes. The two options that
were developed are described in Table 2 and are discussed below.
Table 2.--Alternative P2 Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option Description of P2 option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................. Demonstrate an 85% reduction in the
production-indexed HAP consumption
factor (kg HAP consumed/kg product
produced) from a baseline period.
2............................. Demonstrate at least a 50% reduction in
the production-indexed HAP consumption
factor and additional reduction from
add-on control to yield overall
reduction equivalent to an 85%
reduction in the production-indexed HAP
consumption factor from a baseline
period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first option, an owner or operator can satisfy the MACT
requirements for all process vents, storage vessels, equipment leaks,
wastewater, and heat exchange systems associated with an existing
process by demonstrating that the production-indexed consumption of HAP
has decreased by 85 percent from a baseline (certain restrictions are
discussed below). The baseline comprises the average consumption and
production values averaged over the first 3-year period in which the
process was operational, beginning no earlier than the period
consisting of the 1987 to 1989 calendar years. Alternatively, for a
process that has been operational for less than 3 years, but more than
1 year, the baseline may be established for the time period from
startup of the process until the present. The production-indexed HAP
consumption factor (HAP factor) is expressed as kilograms (kg) HAP
consumed per kg product produced. The numerator in the HAP factor is
the total consumption of material, which describes all the different
areas where material can be consumed, either through losses to the
environment, consumption in the process as a reactant, or some other
form of destruction. Consumption, rather than emissions, is tracked
because it can be used as a true measure of pollution prevention; any
decrease in consumption for the same unit of product generated must
involve some type of increase in process efficiency, including
reduction of waste, increased product yield, and in-process recycling.
Because HAP are used generally as raw materials and solvents in this
industry, reductions in consumption can be generally associated with
reductions in emissions to air, water, or solid waste.
The second option also uses the production-indexed HAP consumption
factor and is also applied to existing processes. This option allows an
owner or operator to supplement reductions achieved with P2 with add-on
controls. The EPA believes that such an option will provide greater
flexibility and cost efficiency to the operators who already may have
some add-on controls. Under this option, an owner or operator must
demonstrate reductions in the HAP factor of at least 50 percent via P2
measures. In addition, the mass of HAP emissions must be reduced by an
amount that, when divided by the production rate and added to the
reduction in the HAP factor, yields a reduction equivalent to at least
85 percent of the baseline HAP factor. Thus, the total reduction
required by option 2 would be equivalent to or greater than an 85
percent reduction in the HAP factor, the same as in option 1.
The following restrictions also apply to the pollution prevention
standards in today's final rule. First, for any reduction in the
production-indexed HAP consumption factor that is achieved by reducing
a HAP that is also a VOC, an equivalent reduction in the production-
indexed VOC consumption factor is required. Second, for any reduction
in the production-indexed HAP consumption factor that is achieved by
reducing a HAP that is not a VOC, the production-indexed VOC
consumption factor may not be increased. Third, particulate matter
emissions from product dryers are excluded from the P2 option because
[[Page 33558]]
the product is not consumed in the process. Fourth, processes that
began operation after November 10, 1997 are not eligible for the P2
alternative. Fifth, the P2 alternative does not apply to HAP that are
generated in the process if they are not also added as a raw material
or solvent; emissions of these generated HAP must be controlled as
specified in the standards for process vents, storage vessels,
equipment leaks, and wastewater systems.
Today's final rule also require owners and operators complying with
the P2 standard to submit a P2 Demonstration Summary as part of the
Precompliance plan that describes how the P2 alternative will be
applied at their facilities. The minimum data requirements for the P2
Demonstration Summary are listed in Sec. 63.1364(g)(3) of today's final
rule.
M. Emissions Averaging Provisions
Today's final rule includes emissions averaging provisions that are
essentially unchanged from the proposed provisions that would allow
emissions averaging among process vent, storage vessel, and wastewater
emission points within an existing affected source. Under emissions
averaging, a system of ``credits'' and ``debits'' is used to determine
whether an affected source is achieving the required emissions
reductions. Emissions averaging allows existing sources the flexibility
to achieve compliance at diverse points with varying degrees of control
already in place in the most economically and technically reasonable
fashion. This flexibility to account for controls already in place is
not as justified for new sources because they can and should be
designed and constructed with compliance in mind. Therefore, new
sources are not allowed to use emission averaging.
N. Initial Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
1. Promulgated Standards
a. Process Vents. To determine compliance with the percent
reduction requirements for gaseous HAP and HCl emissions from PAI
process vents, the owner or operator is required to quantify the
uncontrolled and controlled gaseous emissions from all process vents to
demonstrate the appropriate overall reduction requirements. For process
vents controlled by a device with an inlet of less than 9.1 Mg/yr of
HAP, the owner or operator can either test or use mathematical
methodologies to determine the uncontrolled and controlled emission
rates from individual process vents. For process vents controlled by a
device with an inlet of 9.1 Mg/yr or more of HAP, performance tests are
required to determine the reduction efficiency of each device.
Performance test provisions were structured to account for the
peak-case emissions. The EPA adopted this approach primarily for batch
operations, which, because of their cyclic nature, tend to have
variable emissions. Continuous processes tend to have more consistent
emissions, but for simplicity, the same performance test provisions are
applied to controls for continuous processes. This approach essentially
considers emissions from continuous processes to be peak-case at all
times. Control devices, that have previously been tested under
conditions required by this standard, and condensers are exempt from
performance testing.
To determine compliance with the outlet concentration standards,
the final rule requires the owner or operator to conduct a performance
test using the EPA methods specified in the rule under the same peak-
case conditions. Today's final rule also specifies procedures to
demonstrate initial compliance when using flares.
b. Storage Vessels. For demonstrating compliance with the percent
reduction requirements for storage vessel emissions, today's final rule
requires that the owner or operator conduct either a performance test
or a design evaluation. To demonstrate compliance with the 20 ppmv
outlet concentration, the final rule requires the owner or operator to
conduct a performance test. However, if a control device is shared by
storage vessels and process vents, the results of a performance test
conducted to demonstrate compliance with the process vent standards may
also be used to demonstrate initial compliance with storage vessel
standards. For demonstrating compliance with the floating roof
equipment standards, the final rule refers to the compliance provisions
in the HON. Today's final rule also specifies procedures to demonstrate
initial compliance when using flares.
c. Wastewater. The wastewater provisions in the final rule remain
essentially unchanged from those of the proposed rule. For
demonstrating compliance with the various wastewater requirements,
owners and operators have a choice of using a specified design,
conducting performance tests, or documenting engineering calculations,
consistent with the wastewater provisions in the HON. Appropriate
inspection, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements are
included in the regulation via cross-references to the HON.
d. Equipment Leaks. To determine compliance with the standard for
equipment leaks, facilities must demonstrate that an LDAR program
meeting the requirements of the final rule is in use.
e. Bag Dumps and Product Dryers. To demonstrate initial compliance
with the particulate matter emission limit of 0.01 gr/dscf, the owner
or operator is required to conduct a performance test.
2. Pollution Prevention Alternative Standard
To demonstrate initial compliance with the pollution prevention
alternative standard, the final rule requires the owner or operator to
document yearly quantities of HAP raw materials and products using
preapproved material tracking records, including standard purchasing
and accounting records, and calculating the baseline HAP and VOC
factors. Prior to the compliance date, the final rule requires owners
and operators to submit a pollution prevention Demonstration Summary
that describes how the pollution prevention alternative will be applied
at the facility. The pollution prevention Demonstration Summary
provides the regulatory agency an opportunity to review and approve the
proposed material tracking procedures. Procedures are also specified in
the final rule to demonstrate that the required reductions are achieved
by the control devices used to meet option 2.
O. Monitoring Requirements
1. MACT Emission Standards
The final rule requires monitoring to demonstrate compliance on an
ongoing basis. This monitoring is done either by (1) continuously
measuring emission reductions directly, or (2) continuously measuring a
site-specific operating parameter, the value of which is established by
the owner or operator during the initial compliance determination. The
operating parameter value is defined as the minimum or maximum value
established for a control device or process parameter that, if achieved
on a daily average by itself or in combination with one or more other
operating parameter values, determines that the owner or operator is
complying with the applicable emission standards. Except for the bag
leak detectors, these parameters are required to be monitored at 15-
minute intervals throughout the operation of the control device. For a
device controlling streams that, in aggregate, contain less than 0.91
Mg/yr of HAP, only a site-specific
[[Page 33559]]
periodic verification that the device is operating as designed is
required to demonstrate continuous compliance. Owners and operators
must determine the most appropriate method of verification and propose
this method to the Agency for approval in the Precompliance plan, which
is due 6 months prior to the compliance date of the standard.
Under the final rule, each fabric filter that is used to control
particulate matter emissions from a bag dump or product dryer that is
subject to the particulate matter standard must be equipped with a bag
leak detection system with an alarm to indicate bag leaks or other
causes of increased emissions. In addition, the owner or operator must
prepare a written operation and maintenance manual that describes
inspection and maintenance procedures for these fabric filters. The
manual must also include a corrective action plan that describes
procedures to diagnose the cause of any alarm as well as corrective
actions to be taken to correct malfunctions or minimize emissions. The
manual must be submitted to EPA for approval in the Precompliance
report. Not initiating the corrective action plan within 1 hour of an
alarm is a violation of an operating requirement.
2. Pollution Prevention Alternative Standard
An owner or operator electing to use the pollution prevention
alternative can demonstrate ongoing compliance by calculating the
rolling average of the HAP and VOC factors for each applicable process
or portions of the process. For continuous processes, the rolling
average is calculated every 30 days, and for batch processes, the
rolling average is calculated every 10 batches. In both cases, the
rolling average is based on data from the previous 12 months. In
addition, an owner or operator electing to use pollution prevention
Option 2 is required to monitor the emission reduction obtained through
the use of traditional controls using the methods described above.
P. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The owner or operator of any PAI production facility subject to
these standards is required to fulfill reporting requirements specified
in the final rule, as well as requirements outlined in the General
Provisions of subpart A to 40 CFR part 63. Table 1 following the
regulatory text of today's final rule designates which sections of
subpart A apply to the rule. Generally, the recordkeeping provisions
require the owner or operator to maintain all records documenting the
applicability determinations and indicating that the source is in
compliance with the applicable requirements. Required reports under
this standard include the Initial Notification of applicability to the
standards, the Precompliance report, the Notification of Compliance
Status report, and the Periodic reports required after the date of
compliance.
V. Summary of Nationwide Impacts
The emission reductions that are required by this regulation could
be met by regulated sources using one or more of several different
techniques. Impacts were estimated for control scenarios based on
traditional control techniques that were judged to be the most feasible
for meeting the requirements of the final standards from a technical
and cost standpoint. Energy, cost, and economic impacts of the
pollution prevention alternative would be equivalent to or lower than
the estimated impacts for traditional controls because it is likely
that an owner or operator would elect to implement only those pollution
prevention techniques that have lower impacts than traditional
controls.
A. Air Impacts
The standards are estimated to reduce HAP emissions from existing
sources by 2,500 Mg/yr from the baseline level, a reduction of 65
percent from the baseline (i.e., current) emissions level, and 93
percent from the uncontrolled emissions level. These reductions would
also occur if facilities elect to implement the alternative pollution
prevention standard. In addition to reducing HAP emissions, VOC will
also be reduced. This reduction includes both VOC that are HAP and
other VOC that are not HAP. Volatile organic compounds are precursors
in the atmospheric reaction with oxides of nitrogen that generates
tropospheric ozone. The amount of VOC reduction (beyond the HAP portion
of the VOC) due to implementation of the PAI standards has not been
quantified for this rulemaking. The basis for the estimated emissions
reductions is discussed in Chapter 5 of the Basis and Purpose Document
and in memoranda in the docket (Docket A-95-20, Docket item numbers
III-B-1, IV-B-2, IV-B-3, and IV-B-4).
B. Water and Solid Waste Impacts
With the assumption that overheads from steam stripping will be
recoverable as material or fuel, no solid waste is expected to be
generated from steam stripping wastewater streams. Additionally, no
solid waste is expected to be generated from controls of other emission
points.
Under the final standards, wastewater generated from water
scrubbers used to control HCl emissions is expected to increase by an
estimated 10.8 million liters per year. The volume of wastewater
generated would also increase at plants that choose a water scrubber to
control certain water soluble organic HAP; however, the increase is
expected to be minimal because the use of water scrubbers for this
purpose is expected to be uncommon. The basis for the water and solid
waste impacts is discussed in the Environmental Impacts memorandum in
the Supplementary Information Document in the docket (Docket A-95-20,
Docket item number II-B-21).
C. Energy Impacts
Under the final standards, energy use is expected to increase by an
estimated 4,880 x 109 British thermal units per year (Btu/yr). The
basis for the estimated energy use is discussed in the Environmental
Impacts memorandum in the Supplementary Information Document in the
docket (Docket A-95-20, Docket item number II-B-21).
D. Cost Impacts
The total control cost includes the capital cost to install control
devices (including floating roofs), the costs involved in operating
control devices (energy and operating and maintenance costs), costs
associated with monitoring control devices to ensure compliance, costs
associated with implementing work practices, and the cost savings
generated by reducing the loss of valuable product in the form of
emissions. Monitoring costs include the cost to purchase and operate
monitoring devices, as well as reporting and recordkeeping costs
required to demonstrate compliance. Average cost effectiveness, dollars
per megaram ($/Mg) of HAP removed, is also presented as part of cost
impacts and is determined by dividing the annual cost by the annual
emission reduction. The basis for the cost impacts is discussed in the
Cost Impacts memorandum in the Supplementary Information Document and
in subsequent memoranda in the docket (Docket A-95-20, Docket item
numbers II-B-21, IV-B-2, IV-B-3, and IV-B-5).
Under the final standards, EPA estimates that the total capital
costs for existing and new sources will be $71.6 million and $10.3
million, respectively (June 1998 dollars). The total annual costs for
control at existing and new sources are estimated to be
[[Page 33560]]
approximately $39.4 million and $5.47 million, respectively (June 1998
dollars). The average cost effectiveness of the standards is estimated
to be about $15,800/Mg for existing sources and $13,400/Mg for new
sources.
The EPA estimates that in the first three years following
promulgation industry's nationwide annual cost burden will average
$304,000/yr for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
Most of these costs are for new and reconstructed sources that must be
in compliance upon startup; other costs are for existing sources to
prepare initial notifications and plans. In the fourth year after
promulgation, existing facilities must begin to record monitoring data
and prepare periodic reports, which will significantly increase the
nationwide annual burden.
It is expected that the actual compliance cost impacts of the final
rule will be less than described above because of the potential to use
common control devices, upgrade existing control devices, use other
less expensive control technologies, implement pollution prevention
technologies, or use emissions averaging. Because the effect of such
practices is highly site-specific and data were unavailable to estimate
how often the lower cost compliance practices could be utilized, it is
not possible to quantify the amount by which actual compliance costs
will be reduced. The EPA believes that the overall control costs and
the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping costs will be
substantially reduced for the facilities opting to comply via the
pollution prevention option.
E. Economic Impacts
The control costs imposed on producers in the PAI production
industry will increase their cost of production. The effects of the
changes in production costs are evaluated in the ``Economic Impact
Analysis of the Proposed NESHAP for the Production of Pesticide Active
Ingredients'' (Docket A-95-20, Docket item No. II-A-20). This report
was not changed as a result of public comments and will serve as
documentation for the final rule. The resulting increase in production
costs will increase the market price by less than 1 percent and
decrease market output by less than 1 percent. In addition, the
regulation's impact on foreign competition is relatively small. Social
cost incorporates the changes in welfare to consumers, unaffected
producers, and foreign producers and consumers to the cost of the
regulation. These costs were determined to be negligible for the PAI
production industry; therefore, the total social cost is estimated to
be equal to the total control cost. No plant closures are expected from
compliance with this set of alternatives.
VI. Major Comments and Changes to the Proposed Standards
A. Applicability Provisions
1. Selection of Source Category
The initial list of categories of major and area sources included
10 source categories in the agricultural chemicals industry group. In
June 1996, butadiene furfural cotrimer was moved from the polymers and
resins industry group to the agricultural chemicals industry group (61
FR 28197). In the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA made the following
additional changes: (1) All active ingredients within the meaning of
FIFRA section 2(a) that are used in herbicide, insecticide, or
fungicide pesticide end-use products were added to the agricultural
chemicals industry group; (2) the individual initial and new source
categories in the agricultural chemicals industry group were combined
into a single source category; and (3) the new source category was
named ``pesticide active ingredient production.''
The EPA received numerous comments on the change in the source
category. Many of the commenters requested exemptions for specific
processes or classes of processes. Examples include: antimicrobials;
chromic acid and sodium bichromate; chlorine; sodium hypochlorite;
kaolin (aluminum silicate); sulfuric acid, particularly from copper
smelters; and copper sulfate, from copper refineries and rod mills. The
commenters contend that these processes should be exempt because the
production processes are significantly different than organic PAI
production processes. In addition to differences in the production
processes, each commenter cited one or more of the following reasons to
support their requests for exemptions: (1) Minimal toxicity of some of
the products themselves; (2) the HAP emitted are not organic compounds
or HCl, or they are impurities introduced with feedstocks; (3)
regulation would achieve minimal environmental benefit but impose
significant burden, especially to demonstrate that equipment does not
emit HAP; (4) the product is not primarily sold for use as PAI; and (5)
the production process is part of another source category that will be
regulated by another MACT standard, is part of a delisted source
category, or, if not currently listed, would be more logically listed
among the categories of inorganic chemicals. Some of the commenters
also indicated that sulfuric acid plants will be MACT for copper and
lead smelter furnaces.
Some commenters opposed the expansion of the source category
because some products are produced synthetically and others are derived
from naturally occurring materials. These commenters are also concerned
that the proposal did not identify either the number of processes that
would be covered or examples of the processes, and that EPA has not
ensured that process operation, emission characteristics, control
device applicability, and costs are similar. As a result, they contend
that the proposed regulation is arbitrary and capricious, is
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA's procedures for developing
MACT standards, and defeats the purpose of creating source categories.
The commenters suggested limiting the regulation to synthetically
produced materials because this would be consistent with the process
descriptions presented in the Basis and Purpose document and with the
definition of intermediate (i.e., a compound produced in a chemical
reaction). These commenters explained that other regulations (e.g., the
HON) have recognized this distinction, and many of the compounds
derived from naturally occurring materials are not used primarily as
PAI's.
One commenter stated that EPA should not further expand the source
category beyond that covered by the proposed rule because owners and
operators of other processes may not have read the proposal preamble
closely enough to realize that EPA was requesting comment on such
action. Two commenters supported the scope of the applicability and the
definition of PAI.
The reasons for expanding the source category to include PAI's
other than those on the initial source category list, and for
aggregating them all together in a single source category, are
summarized in section I of this preamble. Since proposal, however, EPA
reexamined the scope of the source category and determined that the
proposed rule included some processes that are not similar to the
others. For the final rule, changes were made to narrow the scope of
the source category; in addition, for processes that remain in the
source category, changes have been made to exempt some processes and to
clarify requirements for others. These changes are: (1) A statement has
been added to specify that the provisions of the rule apply only to PAI
process units that ``process, use, or produce HAP''; (2)
[[Page 33561]]
the definition of PAI has been changed to mean any organic material
that is an active ingredient within the meaning of Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section 2(a); and (3) a
statement has been added to specify that the provisions of the rule do
not apply to the production of ethylene (processes subject to the HON
are also exempted, as they were in the proposed rule). Finally, EPA
decided not to limit the source category only to production of
compounds by chemical synthesis. Each of these decisions is discussed
in more detail later in this section. The provision specifying that the
rule applies only to PAI process units that ``process, use, or produce
HAP'' has been added to the final rule because EPA did not intend for
owners and operators to demonstrate compliance for processes that do
not meet this condition. Note, however, that this provision does not
automatically exempt process units that do not ``emit'' HAP; for
emission points in such process units, an owner or operator must
demonstrate that emissions are less than the applicability thresholds.
The EPA decided to exclude production of inorganic compounds from
the source category because: (1) Inorganic PAI's comprise only a small
percentage of the total PAI production; (2) many of the inorganic PAI
production processes do not use or emit HAP; (3) data are unavailable
on the use, emissions, and control of HAP compounds other than organics
and HCl; (4) some of the inorganic PAI's are included in other active
or delisted source categories; and (5) most of the inorganic PAI's are
used primarily for non-pesticidal purposes. In this context,
``organic'' means any compound that contains carbon and hydrogen with
or without other elements. Based on a review of pesticide registration
data in 1996, less than 10 percent of the PAI's in pesticide products
that are registered as insecticides, herbicides, or fungicides are
inorganic compounds. Inorganic compounds comprise a similar percentage
by weight based on 1993 consumption data; the top 25 compounds account
for nearly half of the total PAI production, and the two inorganic
compounds in the group (sulfur and copper hydroxide) account for less
than 10 percent of the total.
Of the inorganic PAI processes, only those producing HCl, chlorine,
and compounds containing arsenic and chromium are known to use and emit
HAP. Both HCl and chlorine production precesses are part of source
categories that will be addressed by other MACT standards that are
under development. Chromium-based compounds are part of the delisted
chrome chemicals source category and thus, EPA agrees with the
commenter that they should not also be part of the PAI source category.
Data on the existing control levels for arsenic-based compounds are
unavailable. In the absence of such data, EPA has decided that
production of such compounds should not be part of the PAI source
category.
The commenters cited examples of some inorganic compounds that are
primarily used for nonpesticidal purposes. The EPA believes there are
other inorganic compounds that could be added to this list of compounds
used only in minor amounts as pesticides. Conversely, most of the
organic compounds are specifically designed as PAI's. Exceptions
include ethylene, which has been specifically exempted in the final
rule because it is the subject of a MACT standard that is under
development, and several compounds covered by the HON such as acrolein,
ethylene oxide, napthalene, and propylene glycol.
Production of organic PAI compounds that are derived from natural
materials is retained in the source category. Natural materials used as
PAI's fall into one of two categories. One category includes materials
such as herbs, tobacco dust, dried blood, chitin, putrescent whole egg
solids, pyrethrum flowers, cinnamon, sawdust, and ground sesame plant.
These compounds are simply harvested or collected and the only
processing involves mechanical action. None of these compounds is a
HAP. As a result, these processes are not subject to the final rule
because the production processes do not process, use, or produce HAP.
The second category includes compounds like turpentine that are
extracted from natural materials. Extraction processes are not exempted
from the final rule because they tend to use large amounts of solvent
and have a high potential for emissions. Emissions from extraction
processes tend to be more concentrated than emissions from many of the
operations in chemical synthesis processes, and they tend to be larger
scale operations than extraction operations that are part of a chemical
synthesis process. These characteristics make control of extraction
processes more cost effective than control of many chemical synthesis
processes. However, because the final rule includes a primary use
criterion for determining applicability (see section VI.A.2),
extraction processes are only subject to the final rule if the product
is primarily used as a PAI.
One commenter believes the Captan process (one of the
10 initial source categories) should not be combined with other PAI
processes because it differs from the other processes in a number of
ways. According to the commenter, some of the differences are: (1) The
process vent flow rate for production of the intermediate is much lower
than the process vent flow rate for the active ingredient production,
which leads to differences in the complexity and cost of the control
devices; (2) the Captan process has both volatile organic
HAP and particulate HAP emissions; and (3) the cost to control carbon
disulfide emissions would be much higher than the modeled costs.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the
Captan process (and the associated intermediate process)
should be considered separately from other PAI processes. The EPA
assumed the intermediate is an integral intermediate. As a result, the
intermediate process and the Captan process are separate
processes, both of which are subject to the final rule. Although the
flow rates of the intermediate and Captan process vent
streams differ, the flow rates and other process vent stream
characteristics for both processes are well within the range of
characteristics for process vent streams at other surveyed PAI
facilities. These differences were accounted for in EPA's impact
analysis by using different models to represent the two processes.
In addition, although the Captan process itself emits
both particulate HAP (i.e., the Captan product) and a gaseous
organic HAP, carbon disulfide, the two pollutants are emitted from
different vents. The particulate emissions from product dryers also are
considered to be a separate type of emission point like process vents
or storage vessels. The fact that this facility is the only one of the
MACT floor facilities to have HAP emissions from product dryers is not
considered a significantly unique characteristic. It is analogous to
the fact that some of the other plants have HAP storage vessel
emissions or wastewater discharges and are subject to the specific
standards for these emission points, where other plants are not.
Finally, EPA believes the cost impacts analysis is correct. Carbon
disulfide can be controlled with many of the same control devices that
are used to control other organic HAP. If incinerated, the resulting
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions can be controlled using
scrubbers comparable to those used to control HCl emissions. A detailed
discussion of the cost analysis is provided in section VI.O.2.
Therefore, EPA believes the Captan process is not
sufficiently different from other PAI processes to warrant development
of a
[[Page 33562]]
subcategory or a separate source category.
2. Designation of Affected Source
At proposal, the affected source was defined as the facility-wide
collection of process vents, storage tanks, waste management units,
heat exchange systems, cooling towers, equipment identified in
Sec. 63.149 of subpart G, and equipment components (pumps, compressors,
agitators, pressure release devices, sampling connection systems, open-
ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems)
in PAI manufacturing operations at a major source of HAP emissions. The
EPA received several comments on the affected source. The comments
focused on the following issues: (1) Definition of terms, (2) limiting
applicability to processes where the primary product is a PAI, and (3)
limiting applicability to processes where the product is primarily used
as a PAI.
a. Definitions. Two commenters requested changes in the definition
of the affected source and in the terms used to describe the affected
source. One commenter requested that the definition of ``pesticide
active ingredient manufacturing operations'' exclude waste management
units because these units are not subject to the standards but instead
are used to comply with the standards, and typically they are not
dedicated to a particular production process. In addition, the
commenter expressed concern that the proposed definition could be
interpreted to require compliance with new source standards at an
existing waste management unit simply because a new and major PAI
manufacturing operation is built that will contribute wastewater to the
unit.
The second commenter believes the definition of affected source
needs to be revised to include not only the emission points, but also
the process unit and emission control technologies. The commenter
recognizes that the definition in the proposed rule is similar to the
definitions in other MACT standards, but the commenter has recently
realized that it is too narrow. For example, in determining whether
changes constitute ``reconstruction,'' the changes must cost more than
half as much as building a new similar affected source. However, under
the proposed rule, the affected source included only process vents, not
the reactors, distillation units, or other process equipment of which
the vent is a part. Similarly, it included valves and connectors on
process piping, but not the piping itself. The commenter also contended
that the cost of installing emission controls is a legitimate part of
the cost of building a new affected source, but to consider that cost
in the reconstruction analysis, emission control technologies must be
included in the definition of the affected source.
The EPA made several changes to the definition of affected source
and related terms to respond to the comments and to clarify the terms.
One change was to remove much of the language from Sec. 63.1360(a)
because it is included in the definition of other terms in
Sec. 63.1361. Another change was to eliminate the term ``PAI
manufacturing operations'' because it is redundant with the definition
of the affected source. In its place, the term ``PAI process unit'' is
used to describe the process and all related equipment used to produce
a single PAI or integral intermediate. The EPA agrees with the
commenter that the equipment and piping within a process are components
of an affected source that should be considered in the fixed capital
cost analysis for determining whether changes constitute
reconstruction. For the final rule, these items have been included,
along with most of the items on the list of equipment in the proposed
definition of the affected source, in the definition of the ``PAI
process unit.''
The EPA also agrees with the commenter that waste management units
should not be considered part of the PAI manufacturing operations or,
in the final rule, part of the PAI process unit. However, waste
management units are not used to comply with the standards; they are a
type of emission point for which standards are developed. Therefore,
waste management units are considered part of the affected source in
the final rule. This change makes the final rule consistent with other
MACT standards and allows the waste management units to be considered
in reconstruction analyses.
Finally, the commenter's conclusion regarding the application of
new source requirements is correct. If a new PAI process unit meets the
requirements for new source applicability, then the waste management
units associated with that new PAI process unit would have to meet the
requirements for new sources. If the owner or operator wants to
discharge to existing waste management units, they must meet the
requirements for new sources. The practical impact of this requirement,
however, is expected to be minimal because the requirements for new
sources and existing sources are identical except when the HAP load to
the waste management units exceeds 2,100 Mg/yr. Based on survey data
from the industry, no single existing PAI process unit discharges
wastewater with such a high load (and only one facility discharges
wastewater containing that much HAP).
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that control
devices should be a component of an affected source for the purposes of
determining reconstruction costs. The preamble to the General
Provisions cites EPA's policy on this issue, which was originally
stated in the preamble to a December 16, 1975 regulation that deals
with modification, notification, and reconstruction requirements under
40 CFR part 60. That preamble states, ``Costs associated with the
purchase and installation of air pollution control equipment (e.g.,
baghouses, electrostatic precipitators, scrubbers, etc.) are not
considered in estimating the fixed capital cost of a comparable
entirely new facility unless that control equipment is required as part
of the process (e.g., product recovery)'' (40 FR 58416, December 16,
1975).
b. Primary Product. Two commenters urged EPA to specify, as in
other MACT standards, that a process (or process unit) is subject to
the rule only if its primary product is a PAI. Both commenters believe
this determination is needed when processing equipment periodically is
reconfigured to produce different products. In addition, one of the
commenters believes it is needed when multiple products are produced by
a given process unit. This commenter also believes it is needed when a
facility makes a change that is intended to be permanent because the
commenter could not find any provision in the proposed rule that would
allow such a process unit to be exempt from the rule if they stop
making a PAI. The commenters believe the primary product determination
would help manufacturers determine which rules apply and would result
in regulation of processes that produce a given product under only one,
most appropriate MACT standard. One commenter suggested that the
primary product be defined as the one with the greatest annual design
capacity on a mass basis. The other commenter noted that a simple way
to define applicability is to specify that if a process unit stops
making a PAI, the PAI rule no longer applies.
Another commenter interpreted the proposed rule to mean that the
rule would apply whenever a PAI is produced. If a facility uses non-
dedicated equipment, the commenter realized that this could mean that
other rules would apply when the equipment was reconfigured to produce
a different
[[Page 33563]]
product (e.g., the proposed pharmaceuticals rule used the same
language). The commenter believes that complying with two standards for
the same equipment would be confusing. Therefore, the commenter
suggested that the PAI rule apply only when 50 percent or more of the
annual production from the equipment is a PAI, or that EPA allow a
facility to comply only with the most stringent rule that would apply
to the equipment, regardless of the configuration or the product being
produced.
In response to the comments EPA evaluated several options for
including a primary product determination. The analysis considered two
types of situations. The first situation consists of processing
equipment that produces only one PAI, produces different PAI's at
different times, or simultaneously produces coproducts (one of which is
a PAI). The second situation involves processing equipment that
produces different products periodically, and some of the products are
not PAI's.
For the first situation, EPA determined that a primary product
determination is not needed. This conclusion is obvious for equipment
that only produces PAI's because no other rule could apply (because
compounds subject to the HON are exempted from today's final rule). The
analysis is more complicated if a PAI is produced as a byproduct or is
produced in minor quantities relative to some other product of the
process. The EPA is not aware of any such situations. However, if such
processes exist, they may already be subject to the HON, in which case
they are exempted under Sec. 63.1360(d) of today's final rule. The only
other standard that might apply to such a process in the future is the
Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON). The MON will cover a wide variety
of compounds in many different industries. Thus, EPA believes that a
process unit producing a PAI, even if the PAI is not the primary
product, has more in common with other PAI process units than with
process units that will be subject to the MON. Therefore, EPA also
believes it is more appropriate to regulate all such process units
under today's rule rather than the MON.
The EPA considered four options for defining the applicability of
the rule to equipment periodically used to produce chemicals other than
PAI's. The first option is no change from proposal (i.e., no primary
product determination). The second option is to include all equipment
used to produce different products in a ``process unit group,'' and
always comply with the regulation that applies to the primary product
for the group, regardless of what product is being produced. The third
option is to define applicability of the rule based on the primary
product of the process unit. The fourth option is similar to Option 2,
except that the applicable rule for the process unit group could, under
certain circumstances, be a rule other than the one for the primary
product of the group.
Under option 1, a PAI process unit exists whenever a PAI is being
produced, when there is no primary product determination, and when the
owner or operator must comply with the PAI standard for each PAI
process unit. This option was rejected because, as the commenters
noted, it has the undesirable effect of requiring an owner or operator
to comply with a different regulation each time the feedstock changes
or the equipment is reconfigured to make a different type of product.
The second option is to lump all non-dedicated equipment into one
or more ``process unit groups'' and require the owner or operator to
comply with the rule that applies to the primary product within the
group. A variation on this option would be to require compliance at all
times with the most stringent rule that would apply to any of the
individual process units within the group. This option was rejected
because the promulgated pharmaceuticals standard does not include a
provision that would allow an owner or operator to elect to comply with
today's final rule when a pharmaceutical is produced in a process unit
group that has a PAI for the primary product. The variation also was
rejected because it would be difficult to implement; the most stringent
regulation would vary depending on the mix of different types of
emission points at a given facility and could require mixing and
matching different requirements from different rules that apply to the
various emission points.
The third option would specify that the rule apply only if the
primary product of the process unit is a PAI. This option was rejected
because it does not solve the problem of equipment being subject to
multiple regulations. A process unit is defined only by the product it
makes. If the raw materials are changed or the equipment is
reconfigured to make a different product, the result is a different
process unit. An exemption for a process unit when it no longer
produces a PAI would be meaningless because, by definition, a change in
product creates a different process unit. In other words, it is not
possible to make a permanent change in the primary product of a process
unit because a given process unit cannot have more than one primary
product.
The fourth option, like the second option, includes the concept of
process unit groups. This option requires compliance with today's final
rule for all PAI process units within the group, except for the
following situations. One exception is that the owner or operator may
elect to comply with another existing MACT standard for any PAI process
unit(s) if the primary product of the process unit group is subject to
the other standard on June 23, 1999 or the date of startup of the
process unit group, whichever is later. Thus, PAI process units within
a group, even if the PAI is not the primary product for the group, are
subject to this standard unless and until the process unit group is
subject to another MACT standard that covers the primary product of the
group. This option also allows the owner or operator to elect to comply
with the pharmaceuticals standard for any PAI process unit(s) if any of
the products produced in the process unit group are subject to the
pharmaceuticals standard. Thus, pharmaceutical manufacturing process
units within a group that are covered by the pharmaceuticals MACT may
comply with those standards even if a PAI is the primary product of the
group. This provision is included because the pharmaceuticals rule does
not have a provision that would allow an owner or operator to comply
with the PAI rule while producing a pharmaceutical product when the
primary product of the group is a PAI. However, two provisions in the
pharmaceuticals rule are not applicable when producing a PAI. First,
the process vent emission limit of 0.15 Mg/yr in the PAI rule applies
instead of the 2,000 lb/yr limit in the pharmaceuticals rule because
the 2,000 lb/yr cutoff would not be consistent with the MACT floor for
PAI process vents. Second, the owner or operator of a new source that
will produce PAI's as well as pharmaceuticals must comply with all of
the requirements regarding application for approval of construction or
reconstruction in Sec. 63.5 of the General Provisions; the exclusions
in Sec. 63.1259(a)(5) of the pharmaceuticals rule do not apply. Again,
EPA believes this change is necessary to avoid disparate treatment of
PAI producers. The fourth option was selected because it simplifies
compliance by allowing an owner or operator to comply with only one
regulation for a process unit group. It accomplishes this goal without
sacrificing emission reductions because the requirements of the rules
are similar.
[[Page 33564]]
It also does not require that an existing regulation be amended.
Under the fourth option, the primary product of a group is defined
as the product (e.g., a PAI, pharmaceutical, HON chemical, or currently
unregulated chemical) with the highest estimated operating time or
total production rate for the 5 years after the compliance date for
today's final rule or after startup of the process unit group,
whichever is later. The owner or operator proposes the number of groups
and the boundaries of each group based on site-specific operation, but
a group may only include equipment that is or may be used with
equipment that is used to produce a PAI (i.e., some equipment must
overlap between the PAI process unit and some other process unit for
all equipment in both process units to be part of the same group).
c. Primary Use. Two commenters believe the rule should only apply
to production of materials that are primarily intended to be used as
PAI's. One of the commenters noted that for some chemicals registered
as PAI's, only a small percentage of the total product is sold for use
as a PAI.
Since proposal, EPA has evaluated four options for determining
applicability of process units that produce a product for use both as a
PAI and other purposes. Option 1 is to require no primary use
determination (i.e., no change from proposal). Option 2 is to list, in
the rule, compounds that are registered as PAI's but that would not be
subject to the rule based on determinations that their primary use
nationwide is not as a PAI. Option 3 is to require site-specific
determinations of primary use. Option 4 is to list, in the rule, all
PAI's that are subject to the rule.
Option 1 would encompass the most process units and would therefore
achieve the greatest environmental benefit. The EPA rejected this
option, however, because it could result in inequitable regulatory
treatment of a given type of process unit. For example, one facility
might produce a compound for multiple purposes, including a small
amount for use as a PAI, but other facilities produce the same compound
exclusively for other purposes. Under this option, only the facility
producing a small amount of the compound for use as a PAI would be
subject to the rule even though otherwise identical to the other
facility.
Under option 4, a list of PAI's subject to the regulation would be
included in the regulation. Compounds for which the primary use is the
collective non-PAI purposes would be excluded from the list. This
option was rejected because it would not accommodate changes in the
industry. This is a dynamic industry with new compounds being developed
and registered as PAI's every year. Between 1984 and 1995, the industry
added an average of 14 new compounds per year, although not all of
these new compounds would meet the definition of organic PAI subject to
regulation under this rule. As a result, updating the list every year
would be impractical. Another disadvantage to this option is that EPA's
pesticide reregistration process is not yet complete. Presumably,
compounds with incomplete evaluations would be included on the list.
The list then would have to be amended periodically to delete compounds
whose registrations are canceled.
Option 2 was rejected because, like option 4, it would not
automatically accommodate changes in the industry; the rule might have
to be amended periodically to exempt new compounds that are primarily
used for non-PAI purposes. Another concern with option 2 is that it
would be difficult to ensure that the list is accurate and complete.
The final rule adopts option 3, which requires site-specific
determinations of primary use. This option was selected for several
reasons. First, this approach is likely to result in a given process
being subject to only one, most appropriate regulation because EPA is
not aware of any compounds for which the primary use is as a PAI for
one facility but not others. Furthermore, EPA does not expect the
primary use at a given facility to vary. However, if the primary use
changes to non-PAI purposes, today's final rule will still apply to the
process unit (based on EPA's ``once-in, always-in'' policy); if the
primary use changes to a PAI, today's final rule will apply only if the
process unit is not already subject to the HON. A second advantage of
this option is that it automatically accommodates new compounds that
are developed in the future, and existing compounds that are found to
have a pesticidal application. A third advantage is that minimal
additional recordkeeping and reporting is required. Manufacturers are
required under FIFRA to record and report the annual production of each
PAI that they produce; today's final rule requires that they also
record and report the total production to demonstrate that the compound
is produced primarily for non-PAI purposes. Finally, the
pharmaceuticals rule provides a recent precedent for including a
primary use provision.
The final rule incorporates the primary use concept in the
definition of PAI process unit. Specifically, a process unit is
considered to be a PAI process unit if more than 50 percent of the
material produced is used as a PAI or integral intermediate. The
primary use is determined based on the projected annual production from
the process unit in the 3 years after June 23, 1999 or startup,
whichever is later.
3. Recovery Devices
One commenter requested that EPA clarify the applicability of
recovery devices that are used for multiple processes when the
recovered material from a PAI process is used in a non-PAI process. In
the proposed rule, the term recovery device had the same meaning as in
the HON, but it should have been used only in connection with the
wastewater provisions. The MACT floor for process vents is based on the
concept that certain condensers are part of the process (i.e., process
condensers) and any other add-on devices are considered to be control
devices; the concept of recovery devices as in the HON does not apply
to process vents. For the final rule, the term recovery device has been
revised to include only devices used with water streams, and to specify
that equipment based on gravity separation may be a recovery device
only if all of the inlet streams are two-phase liquid streams. The
material recovered in a recovery device may be used in any process,
including non-PAI processes.
4. Intermediates
Under the proposed rule, the affected source would include
manufacturing of any intermediate that is integral to a PAI production
process and for which more than 50 percent of the annual production of
the intermediate is used in the on-site production of PAI's. An
integral intermediate process was defined as a process manufacturing an
intermediate that is used in the onsite production of PAI's and is not
removed to storage before being used to produce the PAI(s). An
intermediate was defined as a compound produced in a chemical reaction
that is further processed or modified in one or more additional
chemical reactions to produce a PAI. The proposed rule would also allow
an owner or operator to elect to include production of the following
intermediate processes in the affected source: (1) Integral
intermediates for which less than 50 percent of the intermediate is
used in the onsite production of PAI's and (2) isolated intermediates.
``Isolated intermediates'' were defined as intermediates that are
removed to storage before being used in the on-site production of
PAI's.
[[Page 33565]]
Several commenters addressed the definitions of different types of
intermediates and their inclusion in the definition of affected source.
One commenter recommended editorial changes to clarify the meaning of
affected source. Another commenter stated that the term ``isolated
intermediate'' should not be used because it has a different meaning
under Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA), and different
definitions for the same term would cause confusion. Another commenter
stated that the rule needs to include a definition for ``storage'' to
clarify which intermediate processes are integral. Other commenters
believe the proposed rule combined integral intermediate production
with PAI production in a single process, which, as described further in
section VI.C.1, differs from the approach used to develop the MACT
floor.
The intent of the proposed rule was to consider each integral
intermediate process to be a separate process within the affected
source, and to allow the owner or operator to elect to include any
other intermediate process in the affected source. To improve the
clarity of these provisions, EPA made several changes in the final
rule. The first change was to include the production of integral
intermediates in the definition of the new term ``PAI process unit,''
as described in section VI.A.2.a. This change clarifies that production
of each integral intermediate is a separate process unit. The second
change was to delete the term ``isolated intermediate'' to eliminate
possible confusion with the term as it is defined under TSCA. The
impact of this change was minimal because the term was only used in the
proposed rule to describe intermediates that are not integral
intermediates. The third change was to replace the term ``integral
intermediate process'' with the term ``integral intermediate'' and
change the definition to mean an intermediate for which 50 percent or
more of the annual production is used in the onsite production of one
or more PAI's and is not stored before being used in the production of
another integral intermediate or the PAI(s). For the purposes of this
definition, an intermediate is stored if it is discharged to a storage
vessel and at least one of the following conditions is met: (1) The
processing equipment that discharges to the storage vessel is shutdown
before the processing equipment that withdraws from the vessel is
started up; (2) on average, the material is stored in the storage
vessel for at least 30 days before being used to make a PAI; or (3) the
processing equipment that discharges to the storage vessel is located
in a separate building or processing area of the plant than the
processing equipment that uses material from the storage vessel as a
feedstock, and control equipment is not shared by the two processing
areas. Processes that satisfy any of these conditions are considered to
be significantly distinct and separate. The fourth change was to
clarify the provisions allowing the owner or operator to elect to
include any intermediate process in the affected source. The final rule
specifies that an owner or operator may elect to designate production
of any intermediate that does not meet the definition of integral
intermediate (and is not otherwise exempted) as a PAI process unit in
the affected source. See section VI.C.1 for a discussion of integral
intermediates in the development of the MACT floor.
5. Determining New Source Status
Under the proposed rule, an addition of PAI manufacturing
operations at an existing plant site would be subject to the
requirements for a new source if it had the potential to emit 10 tons/
yr or more of any HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP,
unless the Administrator establishes a lesser quantity at a plant that
currently is an affected source. Two commenters questioned whether this
meant that a source with minor actual emissions but major potential to
emit could elect to accept a federally enforceable ``synthetic minor''
operating permit with an emission limit below the 10 and 25 tons/yr
cutoffs, and thereby avoid the new source requirements for process
vents, storage vessels, and wastewater.
The new affected source provisions have been revised for the final
rule. As noted above, the term ``PAI manufacturing operations'' has
been removed from the final rule. The phrase ``unless the Administrator
establishes a lesser quantity at a plant that currently is an affected
source'' is not included in the final rule because this statement is
redundant with section 112(c)(1) of the CAA, and the term ``addition''
was determined to be ambiguous. To address these concerns, the final
rule specifies that new source requirements apply to an affected source
for which construction or reconstruction commenced after November 10,
1997, or to any single PAI process unit that meets the following
conditions: (1) It is not part of a process unit group; (2)
construction commenced after November 10, 1997; and (3) it has the
potential to emit 10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of combined
HAP. Thus, if an owner or operator elects to accept federally
enforceable conditions that limit the potential to emit for a single
PAI process unit that is added to an existing facility to levels below
these thresholds, the PAI process unit would be subject to existing
source standards, not new source standards.
6. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
For batch processes, the proposed rule would require an owner or
operator to comply with the provisions in the rule during periods of
startup and shutdown; periods of malfunction would be regulated
according to Sec. 63.6 of the General Provisions. For continuous
processes, the proposed rule specified that only Sec. 63.6 of the
General Provisions would apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
One commenter agrees that routine startups and shutdowns between
batches should be covered by the rule, but stated that it should not
apply during other startups and shutdowns because normal emission
control techniques may be inappropriate or ineffective during those
times. According to the commenter, some of the other situations include
(1) initial startup of a process unit, (2) startup after a malfunction
or an extended period of nonoperation, and (3) shutdowns due to a
malfunction. The commenter explained that during initial startup,
control devices and monitoring systems need to undergo ``shakedown''
and debugging, and may need time to reach their full efficiency. After
an extended downtime, process equipment also will need time to get back
to normal operating conditions, and control devices will need to reach
operating temperatures or equilibrium. Although the commenter
understands that the proposed rule would not apply during malfunctions,
the requirements during a shutdown associated with the malfunction were
not clear.
The commenter also stated that the final PAI MACT standards should
not incorporate Sec. 63.6(e) of the General Provisions for four
reasons. First, the requirement in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(i)(A) to minimize
emissions ``at least to the levels required by all relevant standards''
is ambiguous. Second, the General Provisions do not address shutdowns
of compliance equipment such as control devices. Third, the General
Provisions do not address startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions that
affect only a portion of the process. Fourth, the General Provisions do
not say how to deal with periods of nonoperation. To address these
concerns, the commenter recommended that the rule have self-contained
startup,
[[Page 33566]]
shutdown, and malfunction provisions patterned after those in the HON.
Another commenter recommended that EPA consider revising the rule
to allow batch processes with air pollution control equipment to comply
with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements in
Sec. 63.6(e) of the General Provisions. The commenter explained that
operating practices for controls used with batch processes are the same
as those for controls used with continuous processes; for both types of
processes, operators verify that all control equipment is on-line and
functioning properly to minimize emissions at all times (consistent
with Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions). Furthermore, the
commenter stated that maintenance and corrective actions after a
malfunction of a control device are the same for both batch and
continuous processes. Therefore, the commenter recommended that EPA
consider revising the rule to include the following language: ``For
batch processes with air pollution control equipment, startup,
shutdown, and malfunction shall be regulated according to Sec. 63.6 of
subpart A of this part. For batch processes without air pollution
control equipment, the provisions of this subpart shall apply during
startup and shutdown, and periods of malfunction shall be regulated
according to Sec. 63.6 of subpart A of this part.''
The EPA has reconsidered the applicability of the rule during
periods of startup and shutdown and determined that the requirements of
the rule should not be applied under certain situations for batch
processes as well as for continuous processes. For batch processes,
these situations include initial startups of new or reconstructed
processes, and shutdowns that are not part of intended operation (e.g.,
for maintenance, replacement of equipment, or other repair, possibly as
a result of a malfunction). These are times when the operators may be
unfamiliar with the equipment operation or it may not be possible to
follow standard operating procedures. However, a startup after
maintenance, after switching to a product that has been produced in the
past, or the startups between batches during a campaign are all
routine, normal operating conditions that should result in the same
emissions profile. Similarly, shutdown at the end of a campaign,
between batches, or for planned, preventive maintenance are all normal
operations with the same emissions profile. Conversely, for continuous
processes, startup and shutdown for any reason results in operation
under conditions different from the normal steady-state operation. To
account for these differences between batch and continuous processes,
the final rule provides definitions for startup and shutdown that
differ from the definitions in the General Provisions. Specifically,
the following definitions have been added to the rule:
Startup means the setting in operation of a continuous PAI process
unit for any purpose, the first time a new or reconstructed batch PAI
process unit begins production, or, for new equipment added, including
equipment used to comply with this subpart, the first time the
equipment is put into operation. For batch process units, startup does
not apply to the first time the equipment is put into operation at the
start of a campaign to produce a product that has been produced in the
past, after a shutdown for maintenance, or when the equipment is put
into operation as part of a batch within a campaign. As used in
Sec. 63.1363, startup means the setting in operation of a piece of
equipment or a control device that is subject to this subpart.
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of a continuous PAI
process unit for any purpose. Shutdown also means the cessation of a
batch PAI process unit or any related individual piece of equipment
required or used to comply with this part or for emptying and degassing
storage vessels for periodic maintenance, replacement of equipment,
repair, or any other purpose not excluded from this definition.
Shutdown does not apply to cessation of a batch PAI process unit at the
end of a campaign or between batches (e.g., for rinsing or washing of
equipment), for routine maintenance, or for other routine operations.
The EPA has also clarified in the final rule that the provisions
can apply to processing equipment, as well as control, monitoring, and
recordkeeping equipment. Additionally, in response to the commenter's
concerns regarding ambiguity of the General Provisions, EPA has
replaced the reference to the General Provisions with language from the
HON that specifically clarifies applicability of provisions during
startup, shutdown, and malfunction events.
7. Overlap With Other Standards
Several commenters stated that, in addition to the exemptions
provided in the proposed rule, the rule must also address overlap with
other regulations. Commenters identified potential overlap with new
source performance standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60 (e.g., subparts
Kb, III, NNN, and RRR), NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 (e.g., subparts BB,
FF, and G), and RCRA equipment leak requirements. The commenters
suggested using language similar to that in Sec. 63.110 of the HON for
provisions dealing with process vents, storage vessels, and wastewater
and language from Sec. 63.160(b) through (d) to address overlapping
provisions that deal with equipment leaks.
The EPA agrees with the commenters that the rule must address
overlap with other regulations. The final rule includes language
similar to that in Sec. 63.110 of the HON, thus addressing the overlap
with NSPS requirements for storage vessels in subpart Kb of 40 CFR part
60 and RCRA requirements in 40 CFR parts 260 through 272. The EPA also
added a provision specifying that an owner or operator subject to both
this rule and the equipment leak requirements in subpart I of 40 CFR
part 63 may elect to comply with the requirements of either rule.
The requirements in NSPS subparts III, NNN, and RRR apply to
individual vents, whereas the process vent standards in today's final
rule apply to the sum of all process vents within a process. As a
result, a facility generally must comply with both today's final rule
and any applicable NSPS. One exception is provided in the final rule.
If an owner or operator elects to reduce emissions from a process vent
by 98 percent (or implement an equivalent control option), then the
owner or operator is required to comply only with the provisions of
today's final rule.
The final rule does not address overlap with NESHAP in 40 CFR part
61. Subparts BB and FF regulate emissions from benzene production,
which, because it is subject to the HON, is not subject to today's
rule. Subpart G is reserved and also is not covered in Sec. 63.110 of
the HON.
B. Compliance Dates for New Sources
Several commenters addressed the provision in the proposed rule
that would require new sources to be in compliance upon startup. One
commenter believes the provision should be revised to require
compliance by initial startup or the promulgation date of the rule,
whichever is later. Other commenters believe EPA should either allow
new sources a period of up to 6 months to complete any required testing
after startup, or change the definition of startup to stipulate that
startup is not complete until all required performance testing is
complete, and that this testing must be completed no later than 6
months after steady state production for continuous processes, or
[[Page 33567]]
until 6 months after a successful batch production run has been
completed.
A provision requiring that new sources be in compliance by initial
startup or the promulgation date, whichever is later, is consistent
with other MACT standards and has been added to the final rule.
The EPA does not believe that the compliance date needs to be
changed to accommodate required emissions testing. Under the proposed
rule, an owner or operator would be required to submit the Notification
of Compliance Status report no later than 150 days after the compliance
date (i.e., startup for a new source). This requirement is consistent
with other MACT standards (e.g., the HON, Polymers and Resins (P&R) I,
and P&R IV), and it is nearly the requested 6 months after the
compliance date. Furthermore, much of the required work (e.g., the
emissions profile) may be completed before the compliance date. The
amount of time needed to reach steady state production or to complete a
successful batch production run should not be greater in this industry
than in other chemical production industries. Therefore, the final rule
retains the provision to submit the Notification of Compliance Status
report no later than 150 days after the compliance date.
C. Process Vent Provisions
1. MACT and MACT Floor
Several commenters requested that sources be able to use process
vents meeting the criteria for 98 percent control in determining 90
percent overall process control requirements. Commenters stated that
the EPA determined that the MACT floor was 90 percent on a processwide
basis and excluding these vents increases the stringency of the floor.
The MACT floor was determined to be 90 percent control for process
vents at existing sources. In addition to the MACT floor, the EPA is
required to develop regulatory alternatives beyond the floor and to
select MACT based on the cost effectiveness of these alternatives. A
regulatory alternative was developed that would require 98 percent
control efficiency for specific vents that meet the flow and annual
uncontrolled emissions criteria described in Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iii);
and would require 90 percent control efficiency for the sum of
emissions from all other vents within the process. The cost of the
regulatory alternative was judged to be acceptable, and this
alternative was selected as MACT. The EPA agrees that this requirement
is more stringent than the floor. If a vent that must be controlled to
98 percent is included in determining 90 percent control for all
process vents within the process, the owner or operator would only be
complying with the MACT floor, not the more stringent regulatory
alternative. Thus, the final rule does not allow an owner or operator
to use process vents that are subject to the 98 percent control
requirement when determining compliance with the 90 percent overall
control level.
Two commenters perceived an inconsistency that they believe should
be resolved. The commenters pointed out that in the proposed standards,
integral intermediate processes are combined with PAI processes to
define a single ``process,'' but they were evaluated separately in the
MACT floor analysis. One commenter further noted that this change would
result in an increase in the applicability cutoff of the MACT floor
because part of the emissions from an intermediate process should be
combined with the active ingredient process with the lowest
uncontrolled emissions that were used to establish the applicability
cutoff of 0.15 Mg/yr.
The discussion in section VI.A.4 explains that the intent in the
proposed rule was to consider production of integral intermediates and
active ingredients to be separate processes. As the commenters noted,
this is also the approach used to develop the MACT floor. However, in
reexamining this approach since proposal, EPA realized that some of the
active ingredient processes at the surveyed facilities included
production of intermediates; in addition, some of the reported
intermediate processes may satisfy one of the criteria for storage and
thus not be integral intermediates. If all of the intermediates are
integral intermediates, the floor would increase to 92 percent. If none
of the intermediates are integral intermediates, the floor would
decrease to 88 percent. Thus, EPA considers the proposed floor of 90
percent control to be appropriate. The applicability cutoff also is
unchanged because the active ingredient production and intermediate
production are not combined into a single PAI process unit.
Several commenters requested that the definition of a Group 1
process vent be revised to include an uncontrolled emissions
concentration cutoff of 50 ppmv and a flow rate cutoff of 0.005
standard cubic meters per minute. Several commenters also requested
changing the applicability cutoff in this definition. Some commenters
suggested the applicability cutoff should be based on ``total resource
effectiveness,'' as in the HON. The commenters asserted that these
changes would provide incentives for sources to implement pollution
prevention practices.
Some commenters suggested raising the applicability cutoff to 2,000
lb/yr to be consistent with the cutoff in the proposed pharmaceuticals
rule; the commenters asserted this change was needed because the amount
of available data on PAI processes was limited. Another commenter
suggested raising the applicability cutoff to 10,000 lb/yr because this
is the minimum value that was determined to be cost effective in the
Batch Processes Alternative Control Techniques (Batch ACT) document.
One commenter requested either a higher threshold for a process as a
whole or for the individual process entities that comprise the
Captan process.
One commenter also noted that in many cases, controls on processes
with small HAP emissions were added to control odors or VOC. The
commenter disagreed with EPA's assertion during Partnership Group
meetings that the CAA does not allow the Agency to consider the reason
controls were added. The commenter states that there is no statutory
limitation on how EPA defines ``affected source''; for example, EPA has
already provided exclusions in Sec. 63.1360, and a higher applicability
cutoff could be another.
The EPA disagrees with the suggestions to change the definition of
``Group 1 process vent'' because these changes would be inconsistent
with the MACT floor. The suggested concentration and flow rate cutoffs
are inconsistent because the MACT floor was based on the sum of
emissions from all vents within a process, not the characteristics of
an individual vent. However, for the final rule, EPA did change the
definition of ``process vent'' to exclude streams with HAP
concentrations less than 20 ppmv. Although concentration data are not
available from the surveyed plants, streams with such low
concentrations are likely to be uncontrolled because 20 ppmv is
considered to be the practical limit of control (Docket No. A-79-32,
Docket item No. II-B-31). Furthermore, such streams are likely to have
low annual emissions and, thus, have little impact on the applicability
determination for a process.
The EPA attempted to collect information on the best controlled
facilities in the PAI industry; EPA believes that the best controlled
facilities are contained in its PAI data base and that the processes
contained in the data base are representative of the industry. Based on
the PAI data base, many processes with uncontrolled emissions that were
significantly less
[[Page 33568]]
than the cutoffs mentioned by the commenters were controlled to levels
of 90 percent or greater. Because the emission cutoffs mentioned by the
commenters were not supported by the process vent data, these cutoffs
would not have been defensible because they would have been less
stringent than the cutoff prescribed by the MACT floor.
Regarding the comment that the cutoff for processes is not cost
effective and that other cutoffs that have been demonstrated as cost
effective should be provided, EPA notes that there is no provision in
the amended CAA for consideration of cost-effectiveness in setting the
MACT floor. Therefore, it is conceivable that the standards, which are
set based on the practices of the industry, will require a level of
control that is greater than what was determined to be cost-effective
for other CAA programs. For example, the 10,000 lb/yr cutoff contained
in the draft Batch ACT that was referenced by the commenters was
intended to simplify applicability of presumptive reasonably available
control technology (RACT) control measures, which are applied to the
reduction of criteria pollutants (in this case, VOC) and can include
the consideration of cost effectiveness.
Finally, the amended CAA contains no provisions for considering
reasons why certain processes are controlled and others are not when
determining the group of sources that will make up the best 12 percent
of the source category. Therefore, the issue of facilities controlling
HAP for odor control or other purposes is not a consideration in
setting the floors.
One commenter asserted that the applicability equation used to
determine which vents must be controlled to 98 percent is
inappropriately applied to batch processes. The commenter explained
that the flow rate used in the computer model to develop the 98 percent
applicability regulatory alternative in the Batch ACT is a constant
flow rate, which is inconsistent with batch processing.
In the Batch ACT, EPA developed costs for an incinerator to
estimate the cost effectiveness of controlling emissions from batch
process vents. Although flow rates from batch processes vary, the
control device must be capable of handling the maximum flow rate
possible. Therefore, the incinerator was sized and costed for the
maximum flow rate, even though venting from batch processes will
include periods of lower flow rates.
2. HCl Standards
Two commenters expressed concern that EPA's approach to determining
the MACT floor for the HCl emission limit criteria (e.g., the 6.8 Mg/yr
cutoff) in the proposed rule considers only a limited number of process
vents emitting HCl which may not be representative of the entire source
category. The commenters recommend that EPA consider setting the HCl
cutoff for existing sources at least as high as the average of the two
lowest HCl emission rates from controlled processes at the MACT floor
facilities (i.e., (6.8 Mg/yr + 11.0 Mg/yr)/2 = 9.0 Mg/yr), or that the
control device for the process vent emitting HCl meet a minimum 90
percent efficiency if installed and in operation before November 7,
1997. (Note: EPA assumes the commenter meant the proposal date of
November 10, 1997.) The commenters believe these changes will improve
incentives for pollution prevention, and that allowing 90 percent
control would reduce the cost burden on existing facilities because
retrofitting to achieve an incremental improvement in control is very
expensive.
The EPA disagrees with the commenters that the proposed cutoff for
HCl emissions is inappropriate. As described in the Basis and Purpose
document and summarized below, EPA believes the cutoff of 6.8 Mg/yr is
a very clear and obvious breakpoint. Also, even though the MACT floor
plants have fewer processes with HCl emissions than organic HAP
emissions, this is representative of the industry as a whole. Thus, one
would expect that the HCl floor would be based on less data than the
floor for organic HAP emissions. The EPA also notes that if the floor
were determined by evaluating the best controlled processes throughout
the industry rather than the processes at the best performing 12
percent of existing facilities, that the applicability cutoff might be
lower than 6.8 Mg/yr. It certainly would not be higher.
To develop the MACT floor for the proposed rule, all of the
processes at the nine MACT floor facilities were ranked by uncontrolled
HCl emissions. All processes with uncontrolled emissions below 6.8 Mg/
yr were uncontrolled, and processes with higher emissions were
controlled to various levels. Therefore, the MACT floor was determined
to be no control for processes below this threshold and 94 percent for
processes above it.
The EPA believes there is no basis for setting a cutoff at 9.0 Mg/
yr or for setting a control level of 90 percent for control devices
installed before November 10, 1997. Because the MACT floor consists of
both a control efficiency and a cutoff, the cutoff cannot be changed
independently of the control efficiency. A cutoff of 9.0 Mg/yr would be
inappropriate because it is not associated with the determined MACT
floor control efficiencies. Furthermore, it would not make sense to
include one controlled process (i.e., the process with emissions of 6.8
Mg/yr) with all of the uncontrolled processes; this is a very clear and
natural cutoff. If the standard were based on an alternative more
stringent than the floor, the rule might allow emission points that are
already controlled to the level of the MACT floor to comply with that
level (as was done for organic emissions from process vents). However,
there is no basis for a 90 percent control level, regardless of the
installation date, because the 94 percent control level for HCl is the
MACT floor. Finally, the EPA recognizes that the incremental cost
effectiveness will be high for a facility with control just below the
required level. However, this would be true no matter where the level
was set.
Other commenters stated that the HCl standards for new sources
should be set at 99 percent removal for consistency with the HON
requirements. One commenter stated that since there is no actual test
data from the pesticide manufacturing industry demonstrating a 99.9
percent removal of HCl, a change to 99 percent would provide
consistency with HON rule requirements.
The EPA agrees with the commenters. The proposed control level was
based on a value reported by a surveyed facility. This value was not
supported by test data or other documentation. However, a control level
of at least 99 percent is likely for this scrubber because HCl control
levels of 99 percent are widely accepted as achievable by scrubbers,
and several other facilities reported this level. Therefore, for the
final rule, the required control level for new sources has been changed
to 99 percent. Although being consistent with the HON is not a
priority, this change, as one commenter observed, does make the two
rules consistent.
3. Surge Control Vessels and Bottoms Receivers
One commenter opposes the proposed requirement to regulate surge
control vessels and bottoms receivers as process vents because it
introduces a third way to regulate such emissions under the MACT
standards. The commenter would prefer that these emissions be regulated
as equipment leaks, as under the HON. If that is not acceptable, the
commenter's second choice is to regulate the emissions as storage
vessels, as under Polymers & Resins IV. The commenter believes that
additional inconsistency is confusing and likely to
[[Page 33569]]
lead to inadvertent compliance mistakes.
The EPA notes that there is essentially no difference between
regulating emissions from these equipment as ``equipment leaks'' (as in
subpart H) versus as ``storage vessels'' (as in subpart G). Both the
applicability and control requirements for these sources in the HON are
identical. The reason EPA departed from this approach in the proposed
(as well as the pharmaceuticals rule) rule is that surge control
vessels and bottoms receivers typify the processing equipment, in
capacity and function, found in the PAI and pharmaceuticals industries.
Especially in the case of batch processing (where the HON does not
regulate process vents), the characteristics of emission streams from
these equipment are not significantly different than any other
equipment. Emission streams from bottoms receivers and surge control
vessels result from the displacement of saturated gases from incoming
materials. Displacement emissions are very common in both the
pharmaceuticals and PAI industries. Therefore, EPA decided to regulate
them in a manner consistent with the remainder of processing equipment
found in these industries.
In response to the commenter's concern about possible confusion
from the inconsistent application of requirements across different
source categories, EPA believes that the consistent treatment described
above will actually eliminate a great deal of confusion in the
implementation of the rule, because all equipment associated with a
process will be treated in the same manner, and the control
requirements, which are process based, can be evaluated over all
equipment in the process. Additionally, because of the similarities of
these equipment with other process vessels, the confusion related to
defining a surge control vessel or bottoms receiver from another
process vessel will also be averted.
D. Storage Vessel Provisions
1. MACT Floor
Under the proposed rule, the MACT floor for storage tanks consisted
of applicability cutoffs and a control efficiency for tanks that
exceeded the cutoffs. To develop the floor, the storage tanks at the
best performing 12 percent of facilities (the ``MACT floor
facilities'') were ranked by decreasing uncontrolled emissions. The
tanks were divided into two groups based on an uncontrolled emissions
cutoff below which the median control efficiency was no control. The
median control efficiency below 108 kg/yr was no control; the median
control above the cutoff was 41 percent. A tank size cutoff was
established at 38 cubic meters (m3) based on the smallest
tank with uncontrolled emissions greater than 108 kg/yr that was
controlled at least to 41 percent. For new sources, the smallest tank
with the best level of control was determined. The floor for new
sources was determined to be 98 percent control efficiency for storage
vessels with capacity of 26 m3 or greater and uncontrolled
emissions of at least 0.45 kg/yr.
One commenter stated that the control levels originally provided by
the commenter for two storage vessels are inaccurate due to incorrect
coolant temperatures used by the commenter. The commenter stated that
the impact of this change is that the existing source MACT floor based
on the median control level for tanks with uncontrolled emissions
greater than 108 kg/yr becomes 21 percent, instead of 41 percent.
Another commenter stated that MACT floor should be revised to include
consideration of vapor pressure of the stored HAP to be a primary
parameter.
The EPA has corrected the control efficiencies for each of the
storage vessels mentioned by the commenter. The EPA also reexamined the
data base since proposal and removed several vessels that should not
have been included because they do not meet the definition of storage
vessel. Changes to the storage vessel data base, and changes to the
MACT floor and the final standard that are summarized below are
discussed in the memorandum ``Explanation of Options for Reevaluating
the Storage Tank MACT Floor for the Production of Pesticide Active
Ingredients NESHAP,'' (Docket A-95-20, Docket item No. IV-B-2).
The proposed approach to developing the MACT floor for storage
vessels was significantly different than the approach used to develop
the floor for other rules (e.g., the HON, polymers & resins, and
pharmaceuticals). Since proposal, EPA has reevaluated the revised data
base and determined that an approach consistent with that used for the
other rules is feasible and appropriate for this rule. One of the
commenters also recommended that the floor include vapor pressure
cutoffs as in other rules. As a result, EPA decided to revise the MACT
floor. The revised approach established vapor pressure cutoffs at the
same storage vessel capacity cutoffs and control efficiency cutoffs as
were used in the previous rules. Specifically, the approach examined
storage vessel cutoffs at 38 m3, 75 m3, and 151
m3. (In English units, these capacities correspond with
10,000 gallons [gal], 20,000 gal, and 40,000 gal, respectively, and the
data base includes at least one storage vessel at each of these sizes.)
Within these size ranges, the vapor pressure cutoff at which the
majority of storage vessels were controlled to 95 percent or more was
determined; the 95 percent level is consistent with the efficiency of
floating roofs, which are the most cost effective controls.
Under the revised approach, at liquid vapor pressures of 3.45 kPa
and higher, the median control efficiency was found to be at least 95
percent in both the 75 m3 and larger range and the 151
m3 and larger range; at all vapor pressures, the majority of
storage vessels with capacities smaller than 75 m3 were
found to be uncontrolled. The vapor pressure of 3.45 kPa is the vapor
pressure of toluene, which is the predominant HAP in the industry and
the most common organic HAP stored in storage vessels. Therefore, the
revised MACT floor for storage vessels at existing sources was
determined to be 95 percent control for storage vessels with a capacity
greater than or equal to 75 m3 that store material with a
vapor pressure greater than or equal to 3.45 kPa. In addition, the MACT
floor was determined to be no control for all storage vessels with a
capacity less than 75 m3.
The MACT floor for storage vessels at new sources is based on the
best controlled storage vessel. As discussed above, the best level of
control for storage vessels is considered to be 95 percent. The
capacity of the smallest vessel controlled to 95 percent was determined
to be 40 m3, and the vapor pressure of the compound stored
in this vessel was 16.5 kPa. The MACT floor for new sources must be at
least as stringent as the floor for existing sources. Therefore, the
MACT floor for new sources is 95 percent control for storage vessels
with (1) a capacity of 40 m3 or greater that store material
with a vapor pressure of 16.5 kPa or greater and (2) a capacity of 75
m3 or greater that store material with a vapor pressure of
3.45 kPa or greater.
2. Standard
Under the proposed rule, one regulatory alternative more stringent
than the floor was developed. The regulatory alternative would require
95 percent control of storage vessels with capacity of 75 m3
or greater that have uncontrolled emissions of 108 kg/yr or greater.
Storage vessels smaller than 75 m3 (and greater than 38
m3) that have uncontrolled emissions of 108 kg/yr or
[[Page 33570]]
greater would require control to the floor level (41 percent). This
regulatory alternative was determined to be cost effective. Therefore,
the proposed standard for storage vessels at existing sources was
established at 95 percent control for vessels with a capacity greater
than or equal to 75 m3 that have uncontrolled emissions
greater than or equal to 108 kg/yr. No regulatory alternatives more
stringent than the MACT floor were developed for storage vessels at new
sources. Therefore, the proposed standard for storage vessels at new
sources was determined to be 98 percent control efficiency for storage
vessels with a capacity of 26 m3 or greater with
uncontrolled HAP emissions of at least 0.45 kg/yr.
Several commenters requested that EPA increase the lower emission
cutoff for existing and new storage vessels. Most commenters
recommended increasing it to at least 227 kg/yr; this level corresponds
to the level in the Batch Processes ACT document for which manifolding
to an existing control device was shown to be cost effective. One
commenter suggested adding an exemption in Sec. 63.1360(d)(4) for such
storage vessels. Several of the commenters also noted that combustion
would be the only feasible means of controlling HAP emissions of only
0.45 kg/yr, and that secondary emissions would increase significantly
as a result.
The Agency has determined that including the higher cutoff
suggested by the commenter would have been less stringent than the
cutoff prescribed by the MACT floor. The emission cutoffs mentioned by
the commenters are not supported by the storage vessel data base.
Since proposal, a different method for estimating the MACT floor
has been incorporated (as discussed above). The revised MACT floor uses
storage vessel capacity and the vapor pressure of stored material as
the parameters for determining applicability for storage vessels, and
no uncontrolled emissions cutoff is included in the floor. The Agency
expects that implementing standards based on this format will be
considerably easier than implementing the proposed standards, because
no ongoing emission tracking will be required to demonstrate compliance
with the standard. Use of these parameters is consistent with
requirements for storage vessels in other rules.
Two commenters stated that the minimum applicability size cutoff
for existing Group 1 storage vessels should be changed to correlate
with the NSPS subpart Kb size cutoff to simplify compliance. The
commenters stated that the cutoff for storage vessels at existing
sources would change from 38 m3 to 40 m3. In
addition, the commenters pointed out that the 38 m3 cutoff
is below the smallest storage vessel controlled to the median control
efficiency in the study (i.e., 39 m3).
For the final rule, EPA based the standards for new and existing
sources on the MACT floor because the cost to go beyond the floor was
determined to be unreasonable. As a result of the changes to the
database discussed above, the capacity cutoffs in the final rule are
higher than the cutoffs suggested by the commenters. For existing
sources, the cutoff is 75 m3 instead of the 40 m3
suggested by the commenters. For new sources, the cutoff is 40
m3 instead of the 39 m3 suggested by the
commenters.
One commenter pointed out that in both the definitions of Group 1
Storage Vessel (Sec. 63.1361) and the standard (Sec. 63.1362), the
conversion from metric units to English units are rounded off. The
commenter requests that EPA provide a more precise conversion to
English units. In an effort to reduce confusion over the conversion
from English to metric units (or vice versa), only metric units have
been included in the final rule.
One commenter requested that EPA keep the existing source standard
for storage vessels with capacities greater than 75 m\3\ the same as
that for smaller storage vessels, unless floating roof technology is
already in-place. The commenter asserted that the EPA's ``beyond the
floor'' standard of 95 percent organic HAP control for existing
``large'' storage vessels is not justified for storage vessels that
were not already equipped with floating roof technology. The commenter
stated that EPA's assumption that any existing storage vessel larger
than 75 m\3\ can be cost-effectively retrofitted with a floating roof
is unrealistic.
For the proposed rule, the MACT floor was based on a control
efficiency of 41 percent. As discussed above, the revised MACT floor is
based on 95 percent control. The final standards also are based on a
control of 95 percent because the cost to control to a higher level was
determined to be unreasonable. Now that both the MACT floor and the
standard are based on the same control efficiency, the commenter's
concern about going beyond the floor is no longer relevant.
Several commenters stated that EPA should allow floating roofs as a
control option for storage vessels at new sources. Some of the
commenters stated that it is possible to reduce emissions of some HAP
by 98 percent using a floating roof, with the efficiency calculated
using TANKS3, EPA's computer program to calculate VOC emissions from
storage tanks.
As noted above, the control level for storage vessels at new
sources is 95 percent under the final rule. Floating roof technology is
allowed to meet this limit, just as it is for existing sources.
3. Routine Maintenance
Several commenters requested either an extension in the 240 hours
per year (hr/yr) allowance for routine maintenance or greater
flexibility in its application. One commenter suggested that EPA allow
up to a 30-day extension for control devices (like RCRA incinerators)
that require more than 10 days of maintenance per year, or allow a
facility to compensate for longer downtime by overcontrolling at other
times (this would also require a change in the compliance averaging
period--see section VI.M.1). Other commenters recommended that the 240
hr/yr be allowed for each PAI process unit that is created using the
non-dedicated equipment because maintenance may be required prior to
each campaign. Alternatively, one commenter suggested that, based on
standard maintenance work practices, the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction requirements in subpart A of part 63 should be allowed in
lieu of the proposed 240 hr/yr allowance. The commenter stated that the
standard work practice for many companies is to isolate all equipment
upstream of control devices where planned maintenance will occur to
eliminate all safety hazards to personnel and minimize any impact to
the environment. One commenter supported the provision, but suggested
it be expanded to cover controls for waste management units, controls
used on equipment leaks, and recovery devices (if applicable).
The proposed 240 hr/yr for planned routine maintenance was
mistakenly applied to all control devices in the proposed rule; it
should only have been applied to storage vessels. The startup,
shutdown, and malfunction provisions prohibit the shutdown of control
devices during operation; however, EPA recognizes that for storage
vessels, it is impossible to ``not operate'' (i.e., not have breathing
losses) during a period of time in which an add-on control device would
be undergoing planned maintenance. Therefore, EPA has in the final rule
allowed an amount of time in which the control devices for storage
tanks only can be nonoperational due to planned routine maintenance.
All other situations (i.e., those that require unplanned, emergency
maintenance)
[[Page 33571]]
should be addressed through the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
provisions. This change makes the final rule consistent with other MACT
standards. The rationale for the 240 hr/yr allowance is that EPA
determined that routine maintenance for certain control devices may
require up to 10 days to complete, and because this timeframe is
consistent with State permitting activities (see 59 FR 19441 for a more
detailed discussion of this time allowance).
E. Equipment Leak Provisions
The proposed rule would have required compliance with the
provisions of subpart H; this requirement was based on a regulatory
alternative more stringent than the MACT floor. However, commenters
contended that the data used to justify the program (e.g., the leak
rates) were not representative of the PAI industry, and they supplied
data which contain a sampling of LDAR program results from numerous
types of facilities, including SOCMI and polymer and resins
manufacturing facilities. These data indicate that initial equipment
leak frequencies and, thus, the potential for emissions from leaking
components, may be significantly lower than those assumed in the
original development of subpart H. The commenters also contend that the
monitoring costs were underestimated. One commenter cited the following
specific examples based on a quote from a monitoring contractor: (1)
initial and annual monitoring costs should be at least $4.50/component
and $2.95/component, respectively, instead of $2.50/component and
$2.00/component; and (2) labor costs should be at least $30.00/hr, not
$22.50/hr.
In recent regulatory development efforts involving similar
industries, EPA has generally found equipment leaks to be a significant
source of emissions. In general, EPA's approach has been to require
industries to identify leaks and fix them as soon as possible. The EPA
is sensitive to the recordkeeping burden associated with an LDAR
program for this industry and has strived to minimize the number of
activities that have to be conducted and documented while still
requiring sources to identify and eliminate equipment leaks. Relative
to earlier rules, the Agency developed the HON to focus most of the
recordkeeping and reporting burden on those processes and types of
equipment that have the most significant leaks, in terms of HAP
emissions. Since the development of the HON, the Agency has proposed
the CAR that is designed to minimize the reporting and recordkeeping
burden even further (63 FR 57748, October 28, 1998). The EPA believes
that, in addition to consolidating many LDAR programs, the CAR
addresses many concerns regarding the burden placed on industry to
implement LDAR programs with little environmental benefit. The proposed
CAR is specifically focused on identifying and fixing leaking
components, and leaves out many of the recordkeeping requirements that
are focused on nonleakers. Therefore, EPA decided to determine the
impacts of a standard consistent with the LDAR program in the proposed
CAR.
The EPA does not consider the emission estimates in the original
analysis to be invalid. However, for the revised analysis, EPA used the
leak rate data provided by the commenters and other recently obtained
data to determine a lower bound on the baseline emissions (and a
corresponding upper bound on cost effectiveness for a given set of
assumptions regarding subsequent leak frequencies and the number of
monitoring instruments that are needed). Most of the data provided by
the commenters were from facilities in the SOCMI or polymers and resins
industry. The EPA also combined recently obtained initial leak rate
data for components in pharmaceuticals processes with the data provided
by the commenters. These data were combined because EPA believes
pharmaceuticals processes are at least as representative of PAI
processes as are SOCMI or polymers and resins processes due to the
prevalence of batch processing, similar process equipment, and similar
HAP in the pharmaceuticals and PAI industries.
For the revised analysis, emissions and costs were estimated for
the same two model PAI processes that were developed for the original
analysis. Uncontrolled emissions for the model processes were estimated
based on averages of the initial leak rates that were obtained from the
commenters and for pharmaceuticals processes. Controlled emissions were
estimated based on assumed average leak rates over a monitoring cycle
after implementation of the provisions in the proposed CAR. For valves
and connectors, the average leak rates were assumed to be equal to one-
half of the performance level (i.e., one-half of 0.25 percent); for
pumps, average leak rates were assumed to be equal to one quarter of
the initial leak rates (i.e., one-half of the occurrence rate, where
the occurrence rate is assumed to be equal to one-half of the initial
leak rate).
Since proposal, EPA has reviewed the cost analysis and updated
costs for the monitoring instrument. The original analysis was based on
costs for a monitor that is no longer available. Capital costs for a
currently available monitor that is widely used are higher than the
capital costs in the original analysis, but maintenance costs are
lower. As a result, the new monitor has a lower total annual cost. The
EPA also reviewed the monitoring costs, repair costs, and other factors
used in the costing methodology and determined that no changes were
warranted. The EPA believes the contractor costs cited by a commenter
are higher than the values used in the EPA analysis because they
include overhead and capital recovery costs, whereas these are all
separate cost items in the EPA analysis.
Two approaches were evaluated in the revised cost analysis. The
first approach pro-rated the cost of the monitoring instrument based on
the ratio of the number of components in the model processes to the
number of components that a fully utilized instrument could be used to
monitor (i.e., about 9,000 components). This approach assumes
facilities will use a given instrument to monitor multiple PAI
processes or PAI processes as well as other processes that also are, or
will be, subject to similar LDAR requirements. The cost-effectiveness
of the revised analysis was determined to be $1,400/Mg of HAP removed.
A second, more conservative approach is to assume monitoring
instruments are dedicated to the PAI process(es) at each facility.
Thus, one instrument was assumed for facilities with less than 9,000
components, and two or more were assumed for surveyed facilities that
have more than 9,000 components. This approach raises the cost-
effectiveness to $1,800/Mg. Additional information about the revised
cost analysis is provided in the docket (Docket A-95-20, Docket Item
No. IV-B-3).
Because both of these cost effectiveness values are considered to
be reasonable, EPA revised today's final rule to make it consistent
with the CAR. This change makes the final rule consistent with the
Agency's recent efforts toward consolidation of equipment leak
requirements for air regulations. It also increases the focus on
processes with leaking components by reducing the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for processes with nonleaking
components.
Most of the changes since proposal involve the requirements for
valves and connectors. These changes include: extending the monitoring
period from once every four quarters to once every 2 years for process
units with less than
[[Page 33572]]
0.25 percent leaking valves, adding provisions for valve subgrouping,
extending the monitoring period for connectors with low leak rates,
deleting both the quality improvement program implementation
requirement and the credit for valves removed, and revising the
calculations for determining the percentage of leaking valves. The
Agency believes that the equipment leak requirements included in
today's final rule greatly reduce the administrative burden associated
with LDAR recordkeeping and reporting, and at the same time, result in
a significant reduction in emissions. Based on the leak rates reported
by the commenters, EPA believes the affected sources will be able to
take advantage of the provisions extending the monitoring periods.
F. Wastewater Provisions
1. Maintenance Wastewater
Several commenters stated that maintenance wastewater streams
should either be excluded from the regulation or subject to the same
requirements as in Sec. 63.105(b)(2) of the HON. All of the commenters
cited the variability and unpredictable nature of maintenance
wastewater streams (which makes it difficult to determine whether a
stream is Group 1 or Group 2) and the low potential for substantial
emissions (because such streams are typically due to rinsing or
flushing equipment) as reasons to regulate maintenance wastewater
differently. One commenter added that maintenance wastewater streams
cannot be controlled like process wastewater streams. For example, the
commenter explained that trying to pump the small amount of water
generated when bleed lines or pumps are drained would cause equipment
problems if there was not enough flow to keep material running through
the pump itself. This commenter also stated that the cost to comply
with conveyance requirements would be enormous, especially if an
enclosed system has to be connected to every piece of equipment because
a maintenance wastewater stream might be generated there.
The EPA considered the comments and is persuaded by the commenters'
arguments that the variability of maintenance activities makes
characterization of these wastewater streams difficult, and that there
is fairly low potential for substantial emissions from most of these
wastewater streams. However, EPA has no data on typical quantities of
maintenance wastewater generated, or the characteristics of these
wastewater streams. Therefore, EPA's approach in resolving this issue
was to specify characteristics of maintenance wastewater streams that
have significant emission potential. The EPA also sought to minimize
the burden of characterization of all maintenance wastewater streams.
Based on this approach, EPA evaluated three possible options for
regulating maintenance wastewater. The first option was to adopt the
same requirements as in Sec. 63.105 of the HON, which is the option
suggested by the commenters. The EPA believes that maintenance
wastewater streams may warrant a different treatment in this industry
than what was done under the HON because the PAI industry is expected
to generate process wastewater streams in discrete batches, due to the
batch nature of the industry. These process wastewater streams are
expected to have properties similar to those for maintenance wastewater
streams in terms of the quantities generated, the frequency of
generation, and the options for management, suppression, and treatment.
Therefore, for streams with significant emissions potential, whether
generated because of maintenance activities or by the process
operations, EPA believes that proper management and treatment is
warranted.
The second option evaluated was to require the same management and
treatment for both maintenance and process wastewater, as in the
proposed rule. Under this option, the applicability thresholds are the
same as in the HON for both types of streams. However, because
information on maintenance wastewater streams is unavailable, it is not
clear how many such streams would be subject to management and
treatment requirements. In addition, it is possible that industry would
be required to characterize numerous maintenance wastewater streams
with no environmental benefit. Another concern with this option is the
extent of dedicated maintenance wastewater conveyance systems that will
need to meet emission suppression requirements on the chance that a
Group 1 maintenance wastewater stream might be discharged in the
processing area served by that part of the conveyance system. Because
one of the applicability thresholds for Group 1 streams is 10,000 ppmw
at any flow-rate, it is possible that there is a high potential for
many maintenance wastewater streams to meet Group 1 applicability
criteria. However, even though streams may be concentrated (e.g.,
greater than 10,000 ppmw HAP), the emission potential also depends on
the quantity of water generated. Because the flow rate applicability
criterion for 10,000 ppmw streams is unlimited, this option does not
consider emission potential.
The third option considered and incorporated into the final rule is
a modification of option 2 that does not require characterization,
suppression, and treatment of small maintenance wastewater streams with
low emission potential. The HON includes two thresholds for triggering
Group 1 applicability: the first, which has already been discussed,
captures any streams with greater than 10,000 ppmw HAP load and does
not consider emissions potential; the second applicability threshold,
however, considers emission potential by adding a quantity (greater
than 10 L/min) in addition to the HAP concentration (1,000 ppmw HAP).
When converted to a HAP load, the second applicability threshold is
equivalent to approximately 5.3 Mg of HAP. This load was used as the
applicability threshold in the definition of maintenance wastewater in
the final rule. The wastewater definition in the final rule also
applies to individual discharge events resulting from maintenance
activities, not the sum of all events occurring from a single point of
determination (POD) over the course of a year. By defining wastewater
in this manner, only the largest, most significant maintenance
wastewater streams would be subject to suppression and treatment. These
large streams should be easier to identify and may occur only at
certain POD's. The definition of Group 1 wastewater also includes
maintenance wastewater streams with this same load; thus, there are no
Group 2 maintenance wastewater streams, and there is no burden to
characterize and track any maintenance wastewater streams other than
Group 1 streams.
It is conceivable that there are no maintenance wastewater streams
in the industry with characteristics approaching this definition.
However, because EPA has no data on the quantities or characteristics
of these maintenance wastewater streams, EPA believes the best approach
is to define a threshold of concern rather than to exempt from
suppression and treatment all maintenance wastewater streams.
2. Treatment Options
Several commenters requested that the enhanced biological treatment
option in the proposed pharmaceuticals MACT standard be included in
this rule (i.e., for wastewater that contains soluble HAP and less than
50 ppmw of partially soluble HAP) for discharges to a privately owned
treatment works
[[Page 33573]]
(POTW). According to one commenter, the HON provisions essentially
preclude discharge to POTW's because owners or operators of POTW's
could not reasonably be expected to understand, implement, and certify
compliance with this regulation. Furthermore, the commenter stated that
the detailed analysis performed for the proposed pharmaceuticals rule
indicated that air emissions for certain wastewater streams would be
negligible; thus, there is no need to ``ban'' discharge to POTW's.
Except for minor differences in applicability cutoffs, one of the
treatment options in the HON (and thus in the proposed rule) is similar
to the enhanced biotreatment option under the proposed pharmaceuticals
rule. Both the HON and the proposed pharmaceuticals rule regulate two
groups of HAP compounds in wastewater. For the HON, the groups are
called ``list 1'' and ``list 2'' compounds. For the proposed
pharmaceuticals rule, they are called ``partially soluble HAP'' and
``soluble HAP.'' All 52 of the compounds on list 2 are also classified
as partially soluble HAP. List 1 contains all 14 soluble HAP as well as
the 10 remaining partially soluble HAP. (Note that for the final
pharmaceuticals rule, epichlorhydrin has been moved from the solubles
list to the partially solubles list.) Under the HON, an owner or
operator is exempt from the performance test requirement if wastewater
is treated in an enhanced biological treatment process, and compounds
on list 1 comprise at least 99 percent by weight of the HAP compounds
(list 1 plus list 2) in the wastewater. Under the proposed
pharmaceuticals rule, an owner or operator would be exempt from the
performance test requirement if wastewater containing soluble HAP and
less than 50 ppmw of partially soluble HAP is treated in an enhanced
biological treatment unit, and the owner or operator demonstrates that
less than 5 percent of the soluble HAP is emitted from the municipal
sewer system. The definition of an enhanced biotreatment unit also is
the same under both rules, and waste treatment units that qualify as
enhanced biotreatment units are subject to the same compliance
requirements under both rules. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the
commenter's assertion that the treatment provisions in the proposed
pharmaceuticals rule reduce the burden on POTW's, and EPA has not
revised the treatment provisions for today's final rule.
One commenter cited the results of a study conducted by the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) (and
discussed in detail in PhRMA's comments on the proposed pharmaceuticals
rule) showing that streams discharged to POTW's have the potential for
significant emissions only from ``totally open'' collection and
municipal sewer systems. Therefore, if the collection and municipal
sewer system is totally open, the commenter recommended adding a
provision that would allow an owner or operator to use the enhanced
biotreatment option only if the owner or operator demonstrates, as
specified in the proposed pharmaceuticals rule, that less than 5
percent of the soluble HAP is emitted from the system.
Under the proposed rule, an off-site facility that treats
wastewater would be required to comply with the same requirements as an
affected source, including the emission suppression requirements from
the collection system. The EPA has reexamined municipal sewer systems
and determined that the primary potential for emissions from the
collection system is from the headworks at the POTW. Thus, the final
rule specifies that either the waste management units up to the
activated sludge unit must be covered, or the owner or operator must
demonstrate that less than 5 percent of the total list 1 HAP is emitted
from these units.
3. Standards for New Sources
Several commenters consider the proposed wastewater standards for
new sources with HAP loading greater than 2,100 Mg/yr to be too
restrictive. One commenter believes only Group 1 wastewater, not all
wastewater, should be subject to the standards. The commenter claims
that requiring control of all wastewater will result in negligible
additional environmental benefits, and would likely cause greater
secondary air and resource impacts (e.g., from fuel usage and emissions
of combustion products).
All of the commenters requested that additional treatment options
be allowed. One commenter requested that EPA add a treatment option
that allows an owner or operator to reduce the mass flow rate by the Fr
values; the commenter stated that a 99 percent reduction might be
achievable for an individual facility with a certain combination of
HAP, but it would not be achievable by all facilities. Other commenters
recommended adding at least an enhanced biotreatment option. One
commenter believes all of the treatment options for existing sources
should be allowed for new sources. Commenters requested the additional
options because they believe that limiting treatment options
significantly impacts compliance flexibility with little, or no,
environmental benefit. For example, one commenter realizes that a steam
stripper would not meet the standard for compounds that have Fr values
less than 0.99, but believes that because the remaining HAP in the
treated streams are less volatile, they would have negligible air
impacts. Other commenters stated that EPA had agreed during the
development of revised wastewater provisions for the HON that the
various treatment options under the HON are equivalent from an air
emissions standpoint (e.g., 95 percent reduction in a biological
treatment unit is equivalent to 99 percent reduction in a non-
biological treatment unit).
According to the CAA, the MACT floor for new sources is to be based
on the emission control that is achieved by the best controlled similar
source. In the PAI production industry, the best controlled source is
achieving 99 percent control. This source also is treating all of its
wastewater from PAI processes, the HAP load in this wastewater is 2,100
Mg/yr, and this wastewater contains a mixture of compounds with a range
of Henry's law constants. Thus, the proposed MACT floor for new sources
with a HAP load exceeding 2,100 Mg/yr consisted of the requirements to
treat all wastewater and to achieve a 99 percent reduction in the HAP
content in the wastewater; for new sources with lower HAP loadings, the
MACT floor is no control, as for existing sources. The EPA continues to
stress that the proposed MACT floor is consistent with the CAA, and it
is retained in the final rule.
If a facility has a HAP load that exceeds the cutoff, the enhanced
biotreatment option (i.e., the option that exempts an owner or operator
from initial compliance demonstrations) is not allowed because EPA does
not have information showing that enhanced biotreatment units achieve
99 percent removal for mixtures of compounds with low Fr values.
Otherwise, the final rule allows any treatment option (including
enhanced biotreatment) for such affected sources, provided the owner or
operator demonstrates that it achieves 99 percent removal of all HAP in
the wastewater. The EPA also points out that the requirement to achieve
99 percent removals applies only to facilities that have extremely high
HAP loads and thus, high potential for emissions. Few new sources are
likely to exceed the applicability cutoffs for the MACT floor because
2,100 Mg/yr was more than three times higher than the load at any other
surveyed facility.
Finally, the commenter's statement about the equivalence of
treatment
[[Page 33574]]
options needs clarification. Under the HON, the 95 percent option for
biological treatment units requires that the reduction be achieved from
all wastewater sent to the treatment unit, not just the Group 1
wastewater. The 95 percent reduction also applies to all Table 9
compounds in the wastewater, not just compounds with high Fr values.
Thus, on average, this option is considered equivalent to other
treatment options in the HON. This option is not considered equivalent
to the 99 percent option for new sources described above because the 99
percent reduction is required for all wastewater and all compounds.
G. Bag Dump and Product Dryer Provisions
Numerous commenters opposed the development of standards for bag
dumps, and many of these commenters also opposed the development of
standards for product dryers. The commenters believe the MACT floor was
not established properly per EPA protocol and that the level of the
standard (0.01 gr/dscf) is not readily achievable and is not typical of
fabric filter control. Pointing to the decision in Portland Cement
Association v. Ruckleshaus, 486 F. 2d 375, 396 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the
commenters stated that the test method used to demonstrate compliance
must be closely linked to the test method used as the basis for the
standard. The commenters expressed concern that the standard was based
on data for only one source. Some of the commenters stated that the
standard should not cover bag dumps because no data on bag dumps were
used to develop the MACT floor, and bag dumps are sources of fugitive
emissions that are difficult to capture and route to a control device.
One commenter also stated that regulating bag dumps would not result in
any meaningful emission reductions because the use of bag dumps is
avoided for ergonomic and workplace exposure reasons, and any
particulate matter emissions are small and already controlled to reduce
workplace exposure. Some of the commenters stated that if standards are
promulgated for these emission points, the standard should include an
applicability cutoff as well as the concentration limit, and the terms
``particulate HAP'' and ``bag dump'' should be defined in the final
rule.
Standards for product dryers and bag dumps were included in the
proposed rule because these emission points can be a source of HAP
emissions, specifically particulate matter HAP emissions. The MACT
floor for these emission points was developed for equipment that emits
particulate matter HAP; this equipment was limited to product dryers
and bag dumps because these are the only known sources of particulate
matter HAP emissions at PAI facilities. The MACT floor also was based
on the level of control for these emission points at the MACT floor
facilities (i.e., the nine facilities with the best overall control of
PAI process units). One of the MACT floor facilities dried a PAI that
is also a HAP. Emissions from this product dryer were controlled with a
fabric filter, and emissions tests showed the outlet PM concentration
was less than 0.01 gr/dscf. The floor for particulate matter HAP
emission sources was based on this value because both product dryers
and bag dumps are controlled with fabric filters, and 0.01 gr/dscf is a
typical level for fabric filters.
The EPA is not persuaded by the commenter's argument that bag dumps
should not be regulated because they are (or may be) sources of
fugitive emissions and are thus not comparable to product dryers. The
EPA knows of two bag dumps where a HAP raw material is added to a PAI
process, and both are controlled with fabric filters. At a minimum, a
hood or partial enclosure can be placed above or around a bag dump to
capture the emissions and route them to the control device.
Furthermore, one of the commenters stated that particulate emissions
would be controlled to reduce workplace exposure. Uncontrolled
emissions (i.e., the pre-control emissions) from one of the two known
bag dumps exceed 1.6 Mg/yr. The EPA considers this to be a significant
source, and the required emission reduction to be meaningful. The fact
that some facilities may have found more desirable alternatives to the
use of bag dumps does not justify exempting facilities that still use
them from regulation.
No mass emission rate cutoff was established because all known bag
dumps that are used to add a HAP raw material to a PAI process unit,
and all product dryers that dry a product that is a HAP, are controlled
with fabric filters, and EPA believes 0.01 gr/dscf is a reasonable
level for all fabric filters in such applications. An emissions test
for the fabric filter used to control the product dryer at the MACT
floor facility provides evidence that this concentration is achievable.
The outlet concentration was less than 0.01 gr/dscf for each of the 12
runs in the test. The EPA expects that the existing fabric filters were
designed to meet this outlet concentration, but the standards and
associated monitoring requirements are included in the rule to provide
assurance that they will continue to perform at this level. As a
result, EPA did not change the level of the standard, or add an
applicability cutoff, for the final rule.
In summary, EPA maintains that standards are appropriate for bag
dumps and product dryers that emit HAP, that the MACT floor is valid,
and that the standard should be based on the MACT floor. However, EPA
has decided to make one change for the final rule. At proposal, the
standard was for ``particulate matter HAP.'' For the final rule, the
standard is for ``particulate matter'' because the material captured in
the fabric filters is essentially all HAP, and test methods are for
``particulate matter,'' not ``particulate matter HAP.'' (The EPA
assumes this is why the commenters mentioned linking the test method
used as the basis of the standard with the method used to demonstrate
compliance.) The final rule also specifies that the particulate matter
standards are for product dryers that dry a PAI or integral
intermediate that is a HAP, and for bag dumps that introduce a HAP to a
PAI process unit. The final rule also defines ``bag dump'' as equipment
into which bags or other containers containing a powdered, granular, or
other solid feedstock material are emptied.
H. Heat Exchanger Provisions
One commenter stated that the requirements for heat exchange
systems should be deleted because EPA has not justified the high costs
of sampling that would be required by the proposed rule.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the heat
exchanger provisions impose a high cost for sampling. The rule allows
considerable flexibility in the type of sampling or other monitoring
that an owner or operator may perform, and the amount of required
sampling or monitoring is minimal. The owner or operator may elect to
sample for one or more HAP or other substances whose presence in the
cooling water indicates a leak. Alternatively, the owner or operator
may elect to monitor for any surrogate indicator that reliably
identifies the presence of a leak. If the owner or operator elects to
comply by monitoring for a surrogate indicator, the owner or operator
must develop a plan that specifies what parameter or condition will be
monitored, the level that constitutes a leak, and an explanation of how
the selected parameter or condition will reliably identify a leak. In
the first year, sampling or monitoring is required eight times; in
subsequent years, sampling or monitoring is required only four times
[[Page 33575]]
per year. If the heat exchangers are all part of a single system, only
one set of inlet and outlet samples is required. These requirements
also are not considered burdensome because many facilities in the
chemical processing industry, and presumably the PAI production
industry as well, conduct such sampling or monitoring as a common
maintenance practice. Furthermore, sampling for the detection of heat
exchanger system leaks is a general requirement of some State permits
(e.g., Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission).
One commenter supports the decision to use the HON requirements for
heat exchangers, but believes the rule should simply cross-reference
the HON, not modify and spread out the requirements among the
standards, compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
sections of this rule.
The EPA agrees with the comment that cross-referencing the heat
exchanger provisions in subpart F of the HON would simplify the rule.
Therefore, the final rule cross-references all of the provisions in
subpart F rather than incorporating some of the provisions in the rule
and cross-referencing others. However, the heat exchanger system
provisions are contained in more than one section in the PAI rule
because the two rules have different structures. In the HON, all of the
requirements for a specific type of emission point were presented in a
single section or in consecutive sections. In the PAI rule, the
standards for all types of emission points are presented in one
section, the initial compliance provisions for all types of emission
points are presented in the next section, and so on. Therefore, each
section in today's final rule cross-references the appropriate heat
exchanger system provisions from subpart F.
I. Alternative Standard
Since proposal, EPA has received comments on another proposed
regulation requesting the inclusion of an alternative standard for
facilities that treat HAP emissions, especially from aggregated
streams, with add-on control devices. The commenters contended that the
use of such control devices should be encouraged because (1) greater
emission reduction would occur by controlling processes that are not
subject to a rule as well as those that are, (2) it may facilitate the
streamlining of compliance requirements and thus reduce the resource
burdens on both industry and the enforcement agencies, (3) it may be
easier to assure and assess compliance, and (4) it may be more energy
efficient and result in lower secondary emissions if fewer control
devices are used.
The EPA agrees with the commenters and therefore decided to include
an alternative in today's final rule. The alternative standard can be
applied to individual process vents and storage vessels or to process
vents and/or storage vessels that are manifolded together (with or
without emissions from other sources) for control in an end-of-line
control device (or series of control devices). The control device (or
last control device in a series) must achieve an outlet, undiluted TOC
concentration of 20 ppmv or less, as calibrated on methane or the
predominant HAP. The control device must also achieve an outlet
concentration of 20 ppmv or less as HCl and chlorine. Any other process
vents within a process are regulated under the rule as otherwise
specified without taking credit for the vents that are controlled under
the alternative standard.
To simplify applicability of the alternative, all process vent and
storage vessel emissions that are manifolded to a control device are
considered as one regulated entity. As a result, an exceedance under
the alternative standard results in only a single violation for a given
control device, whereas an exceedance under the regular standard
results in separate violations for each process using the control
device.
J. Pollution Prevention Alternative
Comments relating to the proposed pollution prevention alternative
included objections to the high numerical reduc tion target of 85
percent, and to the lack of specific recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for demonstrating compliance. Commenters also objected to
the proposed restriction on the use of the alternative for processes
that generate HAP, and to the requirement that most of the reductions
be achieved through pollution prevention techniques and not add-on
controls. The following sections summarize major comments on the
proposed pollution prevention alternative, EPA's response to these
concerns, and subsequent changes made in today's final rule.
1. Objection to the High Removal Target for the Pollution Prevention
Alternative
Two commenters asserted that the 85 percent reduction in HAP
consumption factor should be changed to 75 percent for both pollution
prevention options to be consistent with the Pharmaceutical MACT
proposal.
The 85 percent reduction was not changed in the final rule to be
consistent with the value specified in the Pharmaceutical MACT standard
because both values were developed using industry-specific data. The
basis for the 85 percent reduction is the overall nationwide reduction
from uncontrolled emissions that is estimated as a result of the
implementation of the standards in this industry. Although the required
reduction ``target'' was calculated using the same methodology as that
in the Pharmaceuticals MACT standard, the difference in numerical value
is simply due to differences in the impact of the two rules on each
respective industry. For the PAI production industry, the standards
achieve slightly greater reductions relative to the uncontrolled
baseline, which is carried forward to the reduction target for the
pollution prevention alternative. See the pollution prevention
memorandum in the Supplementary Information Document for details of
this analysis.
2. Data Management for Compliance Demonstrations
One commenter stated that the mechanism to realize pollution
prevention reductions must be maintained in a system that can be
managed and provide data that regulated entities and EPA can use. The
commenter asserted that States may not be prepared to support this
regulation with the training requirements of their already overworked
staffs.
The Agency agrees with the commenter that the information necessary
to demonstrate compliance with the pollution prevention alternative
should be identified, collected, and managed in a way that minimizes
burdens on both the industry and the regulatory agencies charged with
enforcement. Therefore, the final rule requires sources seeking to
comply with the pollution prevention alternative to submit, as part of
the Precompliance plan, a pollution prevention demonstration summary
that describes how the pollution prevention alternative will be applied
at the facilities, and what tracking mechanisms will be used to
demonstrate compliance with the alternatives. This summary should
include descriptions of how the facility will measure and record HAP
consumption and production on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. The
summary should also include appropriate documentation of how
consumption will be tracked such as, but not limited to, operator log
sheets, daily, monthly, and annual inventories
[[Page 33576]]
of materials and products, and shipment and purchasing records. The
pollution prevention demonstration summary report allows the owner or
operator some flexibility in deciding the most reasonable and efficient
way to demonstrate compliance, while incorporating the regulatory
agency's review and approval prerogative. Regarding the agency burden,
EPA believes that compliance with the pollution prevention alternative
may actually reduce much of the burden on the enforcement agency, in
that the monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping burden will be reduced
to a material tracking effort, potentially minimizing the amount of
data needed to demonstrate continuous compliance (e.g., monitoring
data) for an entire process.
3. Pollution Prevention for Reactant and Generated HAP
The EPA received several comments on the proposed rule's
restriction against using the pollution prevention option in situations
where HAP are generated in the process. One commenter specifically
stated that pollution prevention should be allowed for HAP generated in
a process. Another commenter indicated that the rule was not clear on
how to comply when the HAP generated in the process is the same as that
introduced. A third commenter noted that these exclusions would prevent
them from using pollution prevention and suggested that the rule
include calculations based on total resource effectiveness (TRE)
equations like in the HON as a way to provide more cost-effective
alternatives for processes that are prohibitively expensive to control
(i.e., that would exclude such processes from the requirements of the
conventional standards).
The Agency reviewed the language contained in the proposed standard
and has revised it to capture the Agency's intent in restricting the
use of the alternative in situations where HAP are generated, without
prohibiting its use altogether. The Agency's concern, in adding the
restriction to the proposed standard, was that HAP generated in a
process would not be addressed through the pollution prevention
alternative because it requires only a reduction in the consumption of
HAP that are actually brought into the process. Therefore, a situation
could exist in which a process could be exempted from control because
the production-indexed consumption factors were reduced by adequate
amounts (85 percent), while a potentially significant amount of HAP,
which happened to be generated in the process, could still be emitted.
The EPA agrees with the commenter that sources that generate HAP should
be eligible for the pollution prevention standard, provided the HAP
generated by the sources are included in the analysis. Therefore, the
final rule allows owners and operators to use the pollution prevention
alternative for processes that generate HAP that are not part of the
production-indexed consumption factor (e.g., the HAP generated are
different from the HAP brought into the process), provided the
following conditions are met: (1) emissions of generated HAP are
controlled to the levels required by the applicable provisions for
storage vessels, process vents, wastewater, and equipment leaks; and
(2) the pollution prevention requirements are applied to the HAP that
are added to the process. For HAP that are generated in the process, as
well as brought into the process (consumed), the definition of
consumption has been revised in the final rule to consider quantities
of HAP that are generated by the process.
A related issue is the tracking of the VOC consumption-indexed
production factor and the proposed rule's requirement that this factor
should not be increased as a result of pollution prevention. Although
this issue was not specifically commented on, EPA also revised the
language of the final rule regarding the production-indexed VOC
consumption factor. In developing the pollution prevention alternative,
EPA's intention was to recognize those processes that have reduced or
will reduce the amount of HAP solvents used in the manufacture of PAI's
as viable alternatives to add-on controls. By preventing affected
sources from increasing the production-indexed VOC consumption factor,
EPA intended to prevent solvent substitutions that merely replaced HAP
with VOC. After reviewing the proposed pollution prevention standard,
EPA realized that the proposed standard gave an unfair advantage to
affected sources that use VOC-HAP solvents as opposed to non-VOC HAP
solvents. As proposed, the rule did not allow affected sources using
non-VOC HAP solvents to switch to low-VOC solvents and still qualify
under the pollution prevention alternative because such a switch would
increase the production-indexed VOC consumption factor. However,
affected sources that use VOC-HAP solvents could switch to low-VOC
solvents as long as the production-indexed VOC consumption factor did
not increase. The EPA's intention in the final rule is that pollution
prevention be accomplished through reductions in solvent usage as
opposed to solvent substitution. After consideration, EPA changed the
final rule to require an equivalent reduction in the production-indexed
VOC consumption factor, if the reduction in the production-indexed HAP
consumption factor is achieved by reducing a HAP that is also a VOC. If
the reduction in the production-indexed HAP consumption factor is
achieved by reducing HAP that is not a VOC, the consumption-indexed VOC
factor may not be increased. In making these changes to the final rule,
EPA essentially eliminated the possibility of receiving credit, through
the pollution prevention alternative, for substituting VOC for HAP.
4. Restrictions on Reductions Achieved Through End of Pipe Controls
(Option 2 of the Pollution Prevention Alternative Standard)
As proposed, option 2 limited reductions in the HAP factor to
exactly 50 percent of the baseline factor, even if actual reductions
exceeded this level. Several commenters recommended revising option 2
to allow any combination of pollution prevention and end-of-pipe
controls to meet the 85 percent reduction requirement. Some of the
commenters explained that not allowing credit for higher reductions
makes the option unworkable under certain conditions, and it provides
incentives for destruction of recovered material instead of reuse. Some
commenters also stated that allowing credit for reductions less than 50
percent would be beneficial, in that such combinations of pollution
prevention and emission control would bring overall removals to levels
equal to or greater than those required by the standards. As an
alternative to option 2, one commenter suggested allowing sources to
comply with 90 percent of any applicable standard if at least 50
percent of the reductions are the result of pollution prevention.
Finally, the commenters believe option 2 places ``unnecessary''
constraints on the type of control devices that can be used to obtain
the required reductions.
In response to the comments, EPA stresses that the pollution
prevention alternative is an alternative to the standards in the rule.
As such, the Agency has flexibility in developing requirements that may
provide alternative approaches for compliance, but is charged with
preserving the reductions that would have been achieved through
compliance with the standards themselves. Under option 2, EPA required
that a significant portion (50 percent) of the reductions be
[[Page 33577]]
achieved using pollution prevention techniques, not add-on controls.
Without such a restriction, owners and operators could attempt to use
add-on controls entirely in meeting the pollution prevention target
reductions, which might result in reductions that are less than those
required by the standards. For example, the process vent standard
requires a 90 percent reduction in the HAP emissions from affected
processes, not an 85 percent reduction.
In an effort to ensure the emission reductions from the pollution
prevention alternative are at least equivalent to the emission
reductions achieved by the standards, the reduction target for the
pollution prevention consumption factor was linked to the predicted
reductions from the nationwide uncontrolled emissions through
implementation of the standards. It was always the Agency's intent that
these reductions would be achieved primarily through pollution
prevention techniques. In recognition of the difficulties associated
with achieving such high consumption reduction targets (85 percent),
however, the Agency developed option 2 to allow some of the reductions
to be achieved using add-on controls. For these reasons, the Agency
disagrees, in general, with the comments suggesting lesser reductions
in both the overall target of 85 percent and the requirement that at
least 50 percent of the reductions be attributed to the pollution
prevention alternative. However, the Agency agrees with the comments
that option 2 as proposed is unworkable if the reduction achieved by
pollution prevention exceeds 50 percent of the required amount. For the
final rule, option 2 was revised to require that at least 50 percent of
the reductions be achieved using pollution prevention and that the
remainder of the 85 percent, however much is needed, be achieved using
conventional controls.
The Agency stresses that the restrictions on the types of add-on
controls allowed to be considered in addition to the pollution
prevention reductions in meeting the overall target, are in place to
guard against double-counting of emission reductions; for example,
control via a technique that recycles HAP material back to the process
is an environmentally beneficial technique and is encouraged. However,
the recycling effect will also reduce the consumption of HAP;
therefore, the recycling is inherently considered. To further reduce
the consumption factor by the control achieved by the condenser would
result in double counting of emissions reductions.
K. Emissions Averaging
1. Complexity of the Methodology
One commenter supported the concept of emissions averaging, but
noted that the provisions are so complex and burdensome that many
owners and operators may be deterred from using this option.
The emissions averaging provisions provided in the proposed rule
are identical to those included in the HON. Further, the requirements
are necessarily complex because of the increased flexibility of the
compliance approach provided by the provisions. As stated in the HON
promulgation preamble discussion, the EPA's goal in crafting the
emissions averaging provisions was to make emissions averaging
available to sources faced with controlling emission points that are
particularly difficult or costly to control, while maintaining the
ability to demonstrate compliance with the standard.
2. Nominal Efficiencies for Control Devices
Two commenters suggested that EPA set a nominal control efficiency
for combustion devices used for air emission control for storage tanks
and/or wastewater at 98 percent. One of the commenters asserted that
EPA's wording in Sec. 63.1362(k)(2) of the proposed rule
inappropriately restricts sources equipped with controls listed in that
section from generating emissions averaging credits.
The EPA believes that the commenters would like to equate 98
percent control to the performance specifications provided in the
proposed rule for combustion devices used for air emission control for
storage tanks and/or wastewater sources. The EPA does not agree that a
nominal 98 percent should be assigned to these devices. Although EPA
did establish these performance specifications, EPA maintains that
testing is important to ensure that a control device can achieve the
reported efficiency. For these reasons, EPA has required performance
testing on combustion devices that control greater than 10 tons/yr of
HAP. Therefore, EPA will not allow credits based on a control
efficiency that has not been demonstrated. Secondly, the provisions of
Sec. 63.1362(k)(2) incorrectly referred to the 98 percent and 95
percent control levels as ``nominal'' control efficiencies. These
efficiencies must be demonstrated via performance testing and therefore
should not be restricted from obtaining credits in emissions averaging.
The final rule has been changed to reflect this correction.
3. Restrictions on Calculation of Credits
Commenters believe EPA should delete the restrictions that prohibit
a source from calculating emission averaging credits for emission
reductions achieved prior to November 15, 1990 or with equipment
installed to comply with other State/Federal rules. The commenters
believe these restrictions (1) are arbitrary, (2) are not dictated by
the CAA, (3) unfairly limit economic incentives and thus impose
unreasonable costs, (4) penalize progressive companies, and (5) are
inconsistent with procedures to develop the floor (i.e., emission
points that would be excluded from emissions averaging are used in
setting the standard). In addition, one commenter believes EPA's
response to comments in the April 22, 1994 Federal Register notice on
the HON are inadequate to justify the restriction.
The EPA's policy on not allowing averaging of emission reductions
for controls in place prior to the passage of the 1990 CAA Amendments
was explained in the April 22, 1994 Federal Register notice for the
promulgated HON (59 FR 19426), and this rationale is still applicable.
In general, the emissions averaging provisions are designed to provide
an owner or operator with flexibility in designing a compliance
strategy that optimizes the use of existing controls, rather than
replacing them. However, the final rule does not allow credit for
emissions reductions achieved by control devices installed before
November 15, 1990 because EPA policy is that regulations must achieve
additional reductions beyond what would have occurred in the absence of
the amended CAA. Emission reductions achieved by controls that were in
place prior to November 15, 1990 would have occurred regardless of
whether or not the CAA was amended. If the rule allowed a source to
take credit for these preexisting emission reductions, the source could
increase its emissions above the 1990 baseline levels. Regarding the
commenter's view that the restrictions penalize progressive companies,
EPA notes that, at least for process vents that meet the applicability
criteria for 98 percent control, owners and operators who can
demonstrate that controls achieving the MACT floor level of control (90
percent) were in place prior to the proposal date of these standards
are not required to achieve the higher efficiency requirement of 98
percent. In this manner, companies who have taken proactive measures to
control emissions are actually rewarded. Additionally, the pollution
prevention
[[Page 33578]]
alternative standard also rewards facilities which have demonstrated
significant reductions in their production-indexed consumption factors.
Finally, these provisions have been included in numerous regulations
beginning with the HON, and they have been reviewed and approved by
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
4. Emissions Averaging for New Sources
Commenters objected to restrictions on emissions averaging for
``new sources.'' The commenters disagreed with EPA's rationale in the
preamble that this approach holds new sources to a stricter standard
and that flexibility is unnecessary for new sources. The commenters
argued that using emissions averaging is the more stringent approach
because of the 10 percent discount factor that is applied to credits.
Furthermore, the commenters stated that new sources also need
flexibility to comply with the standard in the most economical and
efficient manner; for example, if a new source is added to an existing
facility there may be opportunities to route emissions from the new
source to existing controls, or to over control certain existing or new
emission points to provide equal or greater environmental benefit at
lower cost. Also, commenters believe this restriction unfairly limits
economic incentives and imposes unreasonable costs.
The EPA's policy on not allowing averaging of emission reductions
for new sources was explained in the April 22, 1994 Federal Register
notice for the promulgated HON (59 FR 19427), and this rationale is
still applicable. As noted above, EPA designed emissions averaging
provisions to provide existing sources with flexibility in achieving
compliance. Instead of requiring the replacement of all existing
controls that do not meet the level of the standard, the emissions
averaging provisions allow an existing source to optimize the use of
existing controls in the most economical and technically feasible
fashion. The EPA maintains that this concern does not apply to new
sources because the owner or operator of a new source would be able to
integrate state-of-the-art controls into the design of the new source.
However, nothing in the rule prevents an owner or operator from routing
emissions from a new PAI process unit to an existing control that meets
the required control levels. Finally, these provisions have been
included in numerous regulations, beginning with the HON, and they have
been reviewed and approved by OMB.
Even if emissions averaging were allowed for new sources, certain
other factors may limit its feasibility. For example, new sources are
subject to the requirements of the new source review (NSR) program that
may require levels of control similar to those in the rule for new
sources. In addition, because the level of stringency in the new source
standards is high (98 percent), achieving credit above and beyond the
98 percent levels is probably unrealistic in most situations.
L. Testing Provisions and Initial Compliance Demonstration
1. Testing Conditions
Several comments were received regarding the proposed rule's
language on testing. Specifically, commenters identified the
requirements for testing under ``absolute,'' ``representative,'' and
``hypothetical'' conditions to be confusing and suggested simpler
language that specifies, under actual or simulated conditions, the
highest 1-hour period of HAP loading. Another commenter objected to the
requirement of testing under the worst-case loading conditions, and
suggested that testing be required to be conducted under
``representative'' conditions, citing several reasons for the comment,
including safety (operating the device at higher than design loads
could create safety issues), precedent from other regulations, and
difficulty with production scheduling and the resulting production of
unmarketable products if the process was operated in an abnormal
fashion. The commenter also questioned the benefits of such testing,
stating that organic HAP removal efficiency should be fairly stable
across a device.
In response to these comments, EPA has made several changes to the
testing language in the final rule that generally cover the commenters'
suggested revisions, but also allow more flexibility in defining the
required peak-case testing conditions. These changes include the
elimination of the option to test under ``representative'' peak-case
testing conditions, and the elimination of testing requirements for
condensers. Additionally, EPA has expanded the testing language to
cover factors other than the highest HAP load that also impair control
efficiencies (i.e., the most challenging conditions for the control
device). These other factors that limit control efficiencies relate to
characteristics of components and the operating principles of the
control devices. For example, the solubility of an emission stream
component in scrubbing media, or the affinity of an emission stream
component for carbon can also define the most challenging conditions
for a particular control device.
The intent of compliance testing under peak-case conditions is to
document the reduction efficiency of the control device under the most
challenging conditions. This documentation is necessary to assure
compliance in cases where the process operations yield emission stream
characteristics that may vary significantly over time, and where
conditions approaching absolute peak-case may occur. Subsequent to the
initial compliance test, continuous monitoring of operating parameters
established during the test is a reasonable measure of continuous
compliance. Presumably, the control device should function as well or
better under conditions that are not as challenging.
Although EPA is sensitive to unnecessarily increasing the burden
associated with testing of control devices for little benefit, the
Agency still has concern that testing under ``representative''
conditions (where ``representative'' is defined either as in the
proposed rule for representative peak-case or as a more general concept
as suggested by the commenter) may not be sufficient to demonstrate
that the control device will achieve required efficiencies under all
conditions. This is especially important as it relates to the
continuous compliance demonstration provision. Therefore, the option to
test under representative peak-case conditions has been eliminated for
the final rule, and testing under representative conditions has not
been added.
The final rule, however, does allow more flexibility in defining
absolute and hypothetical peak-case conditions. The definition of
``absolute peak-case'' in the final rule incorporates the possibility
that conditions other than the highest HAP loading constitute the most
challenging conditions for the device. These conditions include, but
are not limited to, periods when the emissions to the device may
contain the highest combined VOC and HAP load, periods when the streams
contain HAP constituents that approach limits of solubility for
scrubbers, or periods when the streams contain HAP that approach limits
of adsorptivity for carbon systems.
The hypothetical peak-case conditions also have been expanded. In
addition to establishing hypothetical peak-case testing conditions
based on a calculation of maximum actual emissions, the final rule
allows hypothetical peak-case conditions to be defined based on
equipment design
[[Page 33579]]
features that limit the maximum hourly emissions that can be routed to
the control device. For example, a fan may limit the flowrate, and the
concentration may be limited to a certain percentage of the lower
explosive limit before a bypass valve opens.
The Agency does not believe that the testing provisions in the
final rule require operation in a manner that could damage equipment,
because the testing is only required for conditions that have some
reasonable likelihood of occurring. Thus, the design of the system
should have considered the possibility of operating under these
conditions.
Regarding the comment that the testing provisions should not
require operation in a manner that produces excess or unmarketable
products, or in a manner that will not occur within the time frame
allotted prior to the compliance date, the Agency concedes that some
inconvenience to the source may occur, but believes that in most
situations, facilities will be able to work within the confines of the
definitions to arrive at a set of testing conditions that minimize
production disruptions. The Agency also notes that the requirement for
submittal of the site-specific test plan is also an opportunity for the
facility to present site-specific information that may influence the
selection of testing conditions. The EPA encourages owners and
operators to work with the permitting agencies to arrive at solutions
that meet the intent of this regulation.
2. Emission Estimation Procedures
One commenter stated that facilities should be allowed to calculate
emissions based on all available information, including, but not
limited to, the equations in the proposed rule, and that they should
not have to demonstrate that the equations in the rule are
inappropriate. According to the commenter, it is not logical to require
facilities that produce a variety of products, only a small portion of
which are PAI's, to modify their calculation methodology; nor is it
logical to require recalculation on a large scale when the existing
emissions estimates are based on fundamentally sound principles. The
commenter also noted that facilities already may have invested
significant resources to develop methodologies for calculating
emissions. Another commenter requested that the rule specify when the
emission estimation procedures are not considered appropriate.
For the final rule, EPA did not change the requirement to use
equations to estimate emissions when the emission episodes fit the
descriptions provided in the rule. The EPA believes that the equations
in the rule are the most appropriate methods to estimate emissions from
seven specific types of emission episodes. The requirement to use the
equations, when appropriate, also is important in standardizing
compliance procedures for the industry and in providing replicable
procedures which the regulated community and the Administrator can
follow to assure compliance. However, the rule also allows owners or
operators to request approval to use alternatives for estimating
emissions. The EPA believes it is important that the owner or operator
be able to make a case for any alternative approach. The final rule
clarifies the language describing when an engineering assessment must
be conducted and when it may be conducted.
3. Compliance with the Outlet TOC Limit
Several commenters believe EPA should justify why a performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the outlet TOC concentration under
Sec. 63.1364(c)(1)(viii) of the proposed rule must be conducted only
under absolute peak-case conditions. Other commenters also stated that
this section of the proposed regulation unnecessarily restricts the
choice of test methods to demonstrate compliance with the outlet TOC
concentration. Commenters requested that this section be modified to
allow combinations of test methods to measure TOC, and to allow
measurement of total organic HAP using Method 18.
The EPA reviewed the language in the proposed rule and decided to
include two options for demonstrating compliance with the outlet TOC
concentration. The source must choose one of the following compliance
methods: (1) continuously monitor outlet concentration using a flame
ionization detector (FID) or other devices, or (2) perform an initial
performance test at absolute or hypothetical peak-case conditions and
continuously monitor operating parameter levels. Initial testing at
absolute or hypothetical peak-case conditions is not necessary for
option 1 because continuous compliance is determined through the use of
an FID or other device that continuously monitors outlet concentration
(however, if the monitor is to be calibrated on the predominant HAP, it
may be necessary to perform an initial test to identify the HAP).
Conversely, EPA believes testing under absolute or hypothetical peak-
case conditions is necessary for the second option to ensure that
operating parameter levels are established that will ensure compliance
under all operating conditions. The monitoring requirements for option
2 are the same as the monitoring requirements for complying with the
percentage reduction format of the standard. Therefore, EPA believes
the initial testing that is used to establish the monitoring parameters
should also be the same in both cases.
Finally, EPA has modified the final rule so as not to restrict the
choice of methods that the owner or operator may use to determine TOC
(i.e., Method 18 is allowed for speciation). However, EPA emphasizes
that the concentration limit is based only on TOC, not total organic
HAP.
Commenters also objected to the requirement to correct outlet TOC
emissions to 3 percent oxygen for the 20 ppmv outlet standard.
Commenters oppose this provision because many thermal and catalytic
incinerators normally operate with higher oxygen levels in the exhaust
stream. Commenters suggested that a more reasonable requirement would
be to correct the outlet TOC concentration to the design outlet oxygen
concentration for each particular device. One commenter noted that the
requirement should only apply when the control device is an
incinerator.
The General Provisions prohibit the use of dilution as a means of
achieving compliance with a standard (see 40 CFR 63.4(b),
Circumvention). However, EPA also recognizes that there are valid
reasons for introducing air or inert gases into manifolds for safety or
design considerations. For example, supplemental combustion air may be
required for proper operation of an incinerator. The intent of the
proposed requirement for correction to 3 percent oxygen was to allow an
owner or operator to add supplemental combustion air, but only take
credit for the amount that is needed for proper operation. As one
commenter noted, this correction was not intended to apply to other
types of control devices.
The correction to 3 percent oxygen concentrations was drawn from
the HON and the earlier SOCMI NSPS. Under these rules, this correction
is required for purposes of demonstrating compliance with a 20 ppmv
outlet concentration standard. The value of 3 percent originates from
good engineering practices. For oxygen deficient streams, if the proper
amount of supplemental combustion air is added, the outlet stream would
contain approximately 3 percent oxygen. Typically, SOCMI facilities
have low oxygen, high VOC/HAP concentration
[[Page 33580]]
streams that generally require supplemental combustion air when they
are combusted. Therefore, a correction to prevent dilution was needed
in rules for the SOCMI industry.
A similar requirement to correct the outlet concentration was
included in the Polymer Manufacturing NSPS. Commenters on the proposed
NSPS asserted that an oxygen correction may be appropriate for oxygen
deficient streams to which supplemental combustion air is added to
ensure combustion of the emissions, but it is not appropriate for high
oxygen, low VOC concentration streams. The commenters on the proposed
NSPS further stated that requiring an oxygen correction for processes
with inherently high oxygen concentrations would prevent facilities
from being able to use the 20 ppmv outlet concentration compliance
option. Because at some point the combination of low VOC/HAP
concentration and technology limitations of control devices makes it
impossible to achieve a high percentage reduction (98 percent in the
case of the Polymers NSPS), the 20 ppmv outlet concentration may be the
only compliance option for some streams. As a result of considering
these comments, the final rule for the Polymer NSPS was changed to
require a correction to 3 percent oxygen only if supplemental air was
used to combust emissions.
Other available information indicates that for some pharmaceuticals
processes, dilution is needed for safety or design considerations other
than for use as supplemental combustion air. Typically, this dilution
occurs in manifolds conveying emission streams from unit operations
that already have high oxygen concentrations, and it occurs for control
devices other than incinerators. Although EPA does not have similar
information for the PAI production industry, the information from the
surveyed plants supports the commenters contention that there are
process vent streams with high oxygen concentrations. It is also
possible that some of these streams are diluted for reasons other than
to supply supplemental combustion air.
It is not EPA's intent to prohibit the introduction of dilution air
or other gases, only to ensure that outlet concentrations are corrected
for such dilution. As a result, EPA made a number of changes in the
requirement to correct outlet concentrations to prevent dilution.
First, a definition of ``supplemental gases'' has been added to the
final rule; this term includes supplemental combustion air as well as
any other nonaffected streams with TOC and total HCl/Cl2
concentrations less than 20 ppmv that are combined with affected
streams. Second, the final rule clarifies that the correction to 3
percent oxygen applies only for incinerators, and only if supplemental
gases are added. Third, the final rule explicitly describes procedures
to correct for dilution in noncombustion devices.
4. Exemptions From Performance Testing
Several commenters requested that EPA change the cutoff that
defines the minimum size of a control device for which a performance
test must be conducted to demonstrate compliance. The proposed rule
required performance testing of devices receiving at least 10 tons/yr
of HAP emissions. Additionally, other commenters stated that the
exemption to the performance test requirement for sources that have
conducted a previous test using the same procedures as those required
by the rule is basically useless because it is unlikely that a previous
performance test would have been conducted using the same procedures
and under the same peak-case conditions as those required by the rule.
The commenters added that any test on the control device to demonstrate
compliance under any EPA-supervised program (e.g., NSPS, NESHAP, RCRA,
NSR) should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this
regulation.
The EPA continues to believe that the testing cutoff for control
devices is proper. In developing the regulation, EPA could have
required testing of all devices. The EPA proposed the testing cutoff to
decrease the burden of testing on the industry. For devices handling
lesser loads, EPA believes that the design evaluation will be adequate
to demonstrate compliance.
The EPA also continues to believe that the conditions for exempting
certain sources from performance testing are proper. As described
previously, EPA believes compliance must be demonstrated under the most
challenging conditions for the control device to ensure compliance over
a range of conditions, especially when variability in emission stream
characteristics cannot be predetermined. Therefore, only performance
tests that have been conducted at conditions that represent the
absolute or hypothetical peak-case conditions are considered valid for
demonstrating compliance with this rule.
5. Initial Compliance for Condensers
Under the proposed rule, EPA included three options for sources to
determine emissions and control efficiencies for condensers: (1)
Performance testing including measurement of HAP concentration and
flowrate under peak-case conditions, (2) direct measurement of
temperature of the outlet gas under peak-case conditions, or (3)
emission estimation. Since proposal, EPA identified the following
problems with the proposed options: (1) Direct measurement of
temperature is a procedure to demonstrate ongoing compliance, not
initial compliance; (2) for condensers, determining the control
efficiency during the peak-case conditions does not ensure that the
same or higher control efficiencies will be achieved under other
conditions, (3) options 2 and 3 are not independent because the outlet
temperature is needed to estimate emissions from a condenser, and (4)
performance testing is not a replicable procedure for batch processing
operations and is unnecessary for establishing the control efficiency.
To address these concerns, the final rule was revised to include only
one procedure for demonstrating initial compliance when using a
condenser. This procedure requires calculation of the outlet
temperature that is needed to achieve the required control efficiency
for an emission episode (or group of episodes).
Determining the control efficiency for condensers under the peak-
case conditions does not ensure that the control efficiency under other
conditions will be the same or higher. Under the proposed rule, the
peak-case conditions were defined based on the stream from which the
maximum amount of heat must be removed over a specified time period to
achieve the required emissions reduction. However, to achieve the
required control efficiency for another emission stream with a
different pollutant and/or temperature may require a significantly
lower outlet temperature, even though less heat is removed. Basing the
monitoring on the temperature for the stream with the maximum heat
removal requirement would not ensure that the lower outlet temperature
could be achieved for the other stream.
The revised procedure for the final rule is a replicable protocol
in that for identical inlet conditions, every source will estimate the
same controlled emissions and control efficiency when using the same
outlet temperature. Performance testing for batch processing
operations, on the other hand, can be difficult and can lead to
considerable variability in results. In addition to concerns about
replicable results, the performance testing provisions in the proposed
rule were not structured to properly account for control efficiency
[[Page 33581]]
of condensers under all conditions. Under the performance testing
option in the proposed rule, the control efficiency would be determined
for the peak-case conditions. Then, using the heat removal rate that
occurred during the test, the outlet temperatures, and thus control
efficiencies, could be calculated for other inlet conditions. However,
a performance test is not needed because these temperatures can be
calculated based on the properties of the emission streams. For these
reasons, the final rule does not specifically require testing of
condensers (e.g., measurement of flowrate and concentration to generate
a mass rate) as a means of compliance with the standards. However, as
with other practices, owners and operators can propose alternative
means of demonstrating compliance with the standards for approval on a
case-by-case basis.
M. Monitoring
1. Establishing Parameter Levels
Several commenters suggested that testing under peak-case
conditions and establishing parameter levels for the continuous
compliance demonstration results in overcontrol during most of the
operations and therefore increases the stringency of the standards. The
commenters also believe the requirements to use the average of the
three test runs to set the parameter level and to determine compliance
on a daily basis, as opposed to a yearly basis, increase the stringency
of the standards. One commenter believes that a source should be able
to establish parameter ranges other than those measured during a
performance test.
In the final rule, EPA requires that testing be conducted under
absolute or hypothetical peak-case conditions if all control device
inlet stream conditions cannot be predetermined. If inlet stream
conditions can be predetermined, the owner or operator has the option
of setting different monitoring levels for different operating
conditions. This option was provided in the proposed rule and has been
retained in the final rule. Therefore, EPA does not believe the
requirement results in over control.
Regarding averaging periods, EPA has modified the compliance period
of the standard to allow averaging on either a 24-hour basis or a
``block'' basis, where the block may be any length of time less than
the time from the beginning to the end of a batch process. For batch
operations, an annual compliance period was determined by EPA to be too
difficult to implement and therefore not practical. The annual
compliance period implies that owners and operators could control a
process to varying degrees during the course of a year, as long as the
yearly percent reduction target would be met. Although this format
would offer flexibility to owners and operators who want to change
control strategies to accommodate production scheduling and operational
changes, EPA believes that the demonstration of compliance over such an
extended time period would result in delayed determination of
exceedances and the possibility for extended periods of violations. The
EPA notes that the final rule offers numerous compliance options to
provide flexibility for owners and operators to address variability
within their processes.
Regarding the setting of parameter levels, the purpose of
monitoring operating parameters is to provide evidence of continued
compliance with the rule. Monitoring parameters are set based on test
data, calculations, or information from the evaluation of the control
device design. The final rule requires sources to establish maximum or
minimum operating parameter levels based on the average of the average
parameter values for each of the three test runs (i.e., average values
are to be determined for each of the three test runs, and the
monitoring parameter level is to be based on the average of these three
values). The Agency believes that setting monitoring levels based on
the average of three test runs is necessary because the control
efficiency is also based on the average from the three test runs.
Basing the monitoring parameter on the results of only one of the test
runs would be inconsistent with the average control level.
2. Monitoring With Bag Leak Detectors
Two commenters believe the requirement to initiate corrective
action within 1 hour of a bag dump alarm is unnecessarily rigid or
unnecessary because other situations may require priority attention,
replacement parts may not be readily obtainable after normal business
hours, or it could trip accidentally. One commenter suggested changing
the 1 hour time period to 3 hours. Commenters also believe it is both
unnecessary and inconsistent with other aspects of the rule to require
written approval before adjusting the range, averaging period, alarm
setpoints or alarm delay time contained in the Notification of
Compliance Status report. The commenter suggested requiring changes to
be reported in the next periodic report, and, if prior approval is
needed, it could be handled under the Operating Permit program.
The intent of the requirement to initiate corrective action
procedures within 1 hour is to ensure the prompt investigation of the
cause of an alarm and resolution of the underlying problem. The
corrective action does not necessarily have to be completed within the
hour, but the owner or operator should follow predetermined procedures
that are to be described in a written corrective action plan. These
procedures may vary depending on the time of day, what was determined
to cause the alarm, other priorities in an emergency, and other
factors. Timing is one aspect of the procedures that the owner or
operator should address in the corrective action plan. For the final
rule, these provisions have been edited to clarify intent. One
substantive change since proposal is that the corrective action plan is
to be submitted with the Precompliance plan rather than the
Notification of Compliance Status report. This change will allow the
implementing agency to review and approve the procedures.
The intended use of the bag leak detector is to identify upset
conditions in the baghouse operation. The EPA is concerned that
unrestricted adjustment of the bag leak detector could result in
improper use, possibly resulting in the alarm and sensitivity settings
being set such that leaks or malfunctions could occur undetected. Based
on further review, EPA has determined that periodic adjustment may be
necessary. Therefore, EPA has revised the bag leak system adjustment
requirements to: (1) Allow for routine minor adjustments to the
detector system, (2) require owners and operators to identify all
routine adjustments in an operating and maintenance plan that is to be
submitted with the Precompliance plan, and (3) require that owners and
operators perform complete baghouse inspection to ensure proper
operation of the baghouse prior to any significant adjustments to the
sensitivity or range.
3. Monitoring Frequency
One commenter believes two aspects of the proposed monitoring
frequency are excessive: (1) The requirement in Sec. 63.1365(b)(3) of
the proposed rule to monitor batch episodes less than 15 minutes in
duration, and (2) the requirement to monitor control devices
controlling less than 10 ton/yr of an individual HAP or 25 ton/yr of
aggregate HAP. For the control devices, the commenter believes
``periodic'' monitoring would be sufficient because many parameters do
not vary frequently, and it would allow for the use of simpler
monitoring systems that are less prone to design and maintenance
problems.
[[Page 33582]]
When only one monitoring level is established for a parameter, the
EPA agrees with the commenter that monitoring of batch episodes less
than 15 minutes in duration should not be required because the
practical limit of monitoring frequency is one reading per 15 minutes.
Instead of requiring that each batch episode be monitored at least
once, the final rule requires an owner or operator to measure and
record the parameter level at least once every 15 minutes during the
period in which the control device ``is functioning in achieving the
HAP removal required'' by the rule. This means that one reading must be
taken for every 15-minute period of continuous venting from any
combination of emission episodes manifolded to the control device.
Thus, even when individual emission episodes are shorter than 15
minutes, one reading is required if venting occurs for at least 15
minutes due to overlapping or ``contiguous'' episodes. On the other
hand, if short emission episodes are separated by periods of no flow or
venting from vents that are not subject to control, the owner or
operator does not need to monitor during each episode. In this case,
monitoring every 15 minutes will result in some readings that
correspond with an emission episode of an affected stream. Only these
readings must be included in the daily (or batch) average. For storage
vessels, a control device is considered to be functioning in achieving
the HAP removal required at all times material is stored in the vessel.
Although working losses occur only during relatively short periods when
the tank is being filled, breathing losses may occur at any time. To
identify periods of no flow, a flow indicator (not necessarily a flow
monitor) would be required.
An exception to the procedures described above exists if the owner
or operator establishes separate monitoring levels for different
emission episodes. In this case, at least one reading must be taken
each time the level changes, even if episode lasts less than 15
minutes. This exception is included to counteract the possibility of
setting multiple levels in order to avoid monitoring.
As a result of the change in monitoring frequency, the definition
of a valid hour of data as used in the definition of an excursion also
has been modified in the final rule. At proposal, monitoring data would
not constitute a valid hour of data if measured values are unavailable
for any of the 15-minute periods within the hour. For the final rule,
the word required has been added before the phrase ``15-minute period''
to address the fact that less than four data points per hour may be
allowed in some situations.
The EPA believes that the requirement to take 15-minute readings
for devices controlling more than 0.91 Mg/yr of HAP is reasonable. The
cutoff for continuous monitoring was set because EPA wanted to reduce
the compliance burden on facilities with smaller control devices. The
EPA also notes that ``periodic'' monitoring could increase the
potential for being out of compliance with the standard, because a
reduction in the number of data points places a significantly higher
emphasis on each reading for compliance determination. Additionally,
because emission stream characteristics in this industry are variable,
the use of ``periodic'' readings may not represent true conditions over
the monitoring period.
4. Monitoring for Storage Vessel Controls
One commenter believes the proposed rule lacks appropriate
monitoring provisions for control devices that are used to control
emissions from storage vessels. According to the commenter, the
proposed provisions address only continuous monitoring, which often
will not be appropriate for storage vessels because the emissions occur
primarily during filling. Furthermore, if emissions are controlled
using a disposable carbon canister, the monitoring may consist only of
replacing the canister before the end of its rated life, not
periodically checking a parameter. Therefore, the commenter recommended
that EPA include some of the concepts from the storage tank monitoring
provisions in Sec. 63.120(d) of the HON. For example, these provisions
specify that the owner or operator must prepare a monitoring plan that
describes how the monitoring will be done. In addition, the commenter
indicated that the rule needs to define ``excursion'' for situations
where monitoring is not continuous (e.g., the rule should specify that
the monitoring plan ``shall define an excursion in terms of the
relevant operating parameter'').
The monitoring provisions in Sec. 63.1365(a) of the proposed rule
were intended to apply to control devices used for continuous
processes, and the provisions in Sec. 63.1365(b) were intended to apply
to control devices for all other emission streams. In the final rule,
the provisions from Sec. 63.1365(a) and (b) have been consolidated into
one section that specifies monitoring provisions for all control
devices (Sec. 63.1366(b)). The final rule also includes monitoring
provisions for nonregenerative carbon canisters; the owner or operator
is required to determine the maximum time interval between replacement
based on operation under absolute or hypothetical peak-case conditions
and to replace the canister before this time elapses.
Unlike the HON, the final PAI rule requires the same type of
monitoring regardless of the purpose for which the control device is
used. The EPA does not believe it is necessary to have different
procedures for storage vessel control devices because the types of
emission episodes from storage vessels are comparable to those from
batch process vents. Furthermore, most storage vessels at the surveyed
PAI plants emit less than 0.91 Mg/yr. Under the final rule, if the
total uncontrolled HAP emissions entering a control device are less
than 0.91 Mg/yr, the owner or operator may elect to conduct a periodic
(at least daily) verification that the control device is operating
properly. The verification procedures are to be described in the
Precompliance plan. This provision is comparable to the monitoring plan
concept described in Sec. 63.120(d)(2) of the HON. On the other hand,
if the total uncontrolled HAP emissions entering the control device
exceed 0.91 Mg/yr, the owner operator must monitor the appropriate
parameter(s) every 15 minutes during which the control device is
functioning in achieving the HAP removal required by the rule. Based on
information from the surveyed PAI facilities, this situation would
apply to very few storage vessels in the PAI industry. Most of the few
storage vessels with emissions greater than 0.91 Mg/yr are vented to
the same control device that is used to control process vent emissions.
Thus, a separate set of monitoring requirements for storage vessel
control devices is not needed.
For devices that control more than 0.91 Mg/yr of HAP, the
definition of excursion in the final rule is the same as that in the
proposed rule, and it is applicable to all control devices.
Specifically, a valid hour of monitoring data must be obtained for 75
percent of the hours that a control device operates during a day (or,
if the control device operates less than 4 hours, at least 3 hours of
valid data must be obtained). As noted above, the control device
operation is based on the time when the control device is functioning
in achieving the HAP reduction required by the rule. For storage tanks,
this means all of the time that the storage tank contains material.
When compliance for small control devices is demonstrated by conducting
a periodic verification, the final rule has been
[[Page 33583]]
revised to clarify that not conducting the verification is an
excursion.
The final rule also clarifies that exceedances of operating
parameters are those times when (1) the parameter level, averaged over
the operating day, is above a maximum or below a minimum established
during the initial compliance demonstration, or (2) the required
operating characteristic is not met (e.g., loss of all pilot flames for
a flare). If compliance is demonstrated by conducting a periodic
verification, an exceedance occurs any time the daily, or more
frequent, demonstration does not confirm that the control device is
operating properly.
5. Violations
Several commenters asserted that excursions or exceedances of an
operating parameter should not be violations of the emission standard.
Another commenter also stated that failure to take corrective action
after a bag dump alarm should be a violation of a work practice
requirement, not the emission standard. The commenters stated that such
incidents should not be violations of an emission limit because the
parameters are only indicators of proper operation, they do not prove
compliance with an emission standard. Another commenter stated that the
proposed provision conflicts with the basis of the compliance assurance
monitoring (CAM) regulation. Two commenters also stated that the
requirement in Sec. 63.1365(a) to ``operate processes and control
devices within the parameters'' must be revised. Both commenters
interpreted this statement to mean that each data point must be within
the established limit. One commenter indicated that the source must be
allowed to demonstrate continued compliance with the emission standard
despite exceedance of a monitoring parameter. Another commenter stated
that (1) monitoring data collected during any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction should be excluded from daily averages; (2) the rule should
specify that there is no violation if an event such as a malfunction
results in insufficient data or an exceedance of a parameter; and (3)
the statement that an excursion is not a violation if it happens during
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction and the facility follows it
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is a concern because it could
be interpreted to mean that EPA could assess two penalties if the plan
is not followed.
The EPA's policy is that new part 63 rules, in particular those
that require the use of a control device to reduce pollutant emissions,
will include compliance determinations on two levels. The first level
is the ``traditional'' performance test requirement that is based on
the use of a specific test method over a set period of time and
operating conditions. A performance test is generally conducted at the
time the rule is first effective (e.g., at facility startup or after an
effective date for an existing facility) and may be repeated
periodically thereafter. The results of the performance test are
compared with an emission limitation (e.g., concentration, control
efficiency, or mass rate). The second level of the compliance
determination in part 63 rules is the continuous compliance obligation,
which is implemented through monitoring.
In general, EPA recognizes two basic approaches to monitoring. One
method is to establish monitoring as a direct measure of continuous
compliance. Under this continuous compliance monitoring approach, an
enforceable value of the monitored parameters is defined and measured.
The Agency has adopted this approach in part 63 standards and is
committed to following this approach whenever appropriate in future
rulemakings. Another approach is to establish monitoring to provide a
reasonable assurance of compliance by documenting continued proper
operation of the control devices, indicating excursions from proper
operating conditions, and correcting the problems that cause
excursions. This second approach is the basis of the CAM rule, which
applies to sources that are not currently subject to part 63 standards.
Some part 63 rules specify that compliance be demonstrated
continuously using either a continuous emissions monitoring system
(CEMS) for a surrogate pollutant or parameter monitoring. In these
situations, the rule includes specific limitations and averaging times.
The surrogate pollutant or operating parameter limit becomes an
enforceable limit for the rule. There is no requirement that an
alternative limit, whether a surrogate pollutant or an operational
parameter, be statistically correlated with emissions or the compliance
level of the regulated pollutant(s). The alternative limit is a
separately enforceable requirement of the rule. The alternative is not
secondary to the emission limit; rather, it is applied in lieu of a
continuous emission limit obligation.
The enforceable level for the surrogate pollutant or operating
parameter may be based on measurements made during a performance test
or other conditions specified by the part 63 rule. In any case, the
alternative limit becomes the continuous compliance obligation and
fulfills the second level of compliance for the rule.
The EPA has considered the commenters' argument that an exceedance
of a monitoring parameter is not necessarily an exceedance of an
emission limit. The Agency acknowledges that a parameter exceedance
does not necessarily mean that the source has exceeded the emission
limit. However, as discussed above, under the EPA's approach to
continuous compliance in part 63 rules, the continuous parameter
monitoring limit is a separate requirement that is not rebuttable
through contrast with actual or estimated HAP emission values. In
addition, EPA believes that given the flexibility the owner or operator
has to select operating parameters, including the option that allows
the owner or operator to set different parameter levels for different
operating conditions, the burden is on the source to remain within the
operating limit defined for the parameter or parameters.
To address the potential disparity between parameter limit
exceedances and emission limit exceedances, the final rule contains two
different types of continuous compliance violations. When a source is
using a CEMS to monitor compliance with the 20 ppmv alternative
standard, an exceedance is defined as a violation of the emission
limit. Similarly, because the exit gas temperature of a condenser is so
closely correlated with emissions, a condenser temperature exceedance
is considered a violation of the emission limit. Exceedances of other
types of parameter limits are defined as violations of an operating
limit. Failure to initiate the corrective action plan after a bag leak
detector alarm also is a violation of an operating limit.
If monitoring data obtained during a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction result in an exceedance, the exceedance is not a violation
as long as the facility follows the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan. If the facility does not follow the plan, an exceedance would be
a violation, but it would not be two violations. Thus, the final rule
retains the requirement to use data obtained during any startup,
shutdown, and malfunction in daily averages.
Similarly, if a startup, shutdown, or malfunction results in the
inability to collect monitoring data, it may cause an excursion. This
excursion would not be a violation if the facility followed its
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, but it would be a violation if
they did not follow the plan.
[[Page 33584]]
As noted above, the final rule requires monitoring when the control
device is functioning in achieving the HAP removal required by the
rule. Thus, data obtained during time when the process is not operating
are not to be used in determining the daily average of the parameter
level.
Finally, EPA believes that the language in the final rule is clear
regarding the determination of a violation. The final rule no longer
contains language specifying that owners and operators ``shall operate
within established parameter levels.'' Additionally, EPA believes that
the final rule clearly identifies averaging periods for reducing
monitoring data and comparing against established parameter levels.
N. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Comments received relating to recordkeeping generally focused on
the burden of the extensive recordkeeping required by the regulation.
Comments related to reporting focused on dates for submittal of
reports, and the burden of submitting all the reports required by the
regulation. These comments are discussed below.
1. Recordkeeping Burden
Several commenters took issue with the amount of recordkeeping
required by the rule and requested that EPA review the recordkeeping
requirements to ensure that the amount of recordkeeping is really
necessary. One commenter supports the provisions in Sec. 63.1366(a) and
(a)(3) that would require an owner or operator to maintain records of
only the daily average of the parameter values not each datapoint,
because this reduces the recordkeeping burden. This commenter also
stated that the rule should contain a provision similar to the
provision in Sec. 63.152(g) of the HON, which allows for retention of
only average parameter values, rather than each individual data point.
Detailed records are needed to demonstrate compliance with the
regulation. However, prior to proposal, EPA made a concerted effort to
eliminate duplicative and unnecessary recordkeeping requirements
because EPA recognizes that these requirements would burden both the
affected sources and EPA enforcement agencies. Since proposal, EPA has
reviewed the recordkeeping provisions and made a number of changes.
Many of the changes are editorial revisions designed to clarify the
requirements. Some of these clarifications are discussed in more detail
in other responses in this chapter. Other clarifications explicitly
state recordkeeping requirements that were merely implied in the
proposed rule (e.g., records of planned routine maintenance and records
of the absolute or hypothetical peak-case conditions for process vent
testing).
The final rule also includes additional recordkeeping requirements
to document compliance with new or revised provisions in the rule. For
example, the final rule includes recordkeeping to document the primary
use for material produced by PAI process units if the primary use is
not as a PAI (see section 3.2 for a discussion of the new primary use
provisions). Another example in the final rule includes procedures to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with the annual emission limit for
process vents by calculating an annual rolling summation every day, and
records of these calculations must be maintained. Finally,
Sec. 63.1362(j) was added to the final rule to specify that bypass
lines that could divert a vent stream away from a control device must
be monitored either with a flow indicator or by visual inspection of
the seal or closure mechanism that secures the valve in the closed
position; records of any flow or the results of inspections must also
be maintained.
One additional change involves the parameter monitoring records in
Sec. 63.1366(a) and (a)(3) that were cited by the commenter. After
reviewing these requirements, EPA now believes that, even when the
daily average is in compliance, it is necessary to maintain all
parameter readings, not just the daily averages. This rule requires
that owners and operators select only parameter readings that are taken
when the control device is controlling HAP emissions from affected
emission streams. Emission episodes from batch processes, which
predominate in the PAI production industry, are discontinuous. As a
result, some monitoring readings may occur during periods of no flow
for affected streams (although there may be flow of nonaffected
streams). Readings taken during these periods must be excluded from the
daily averages. In order to verify that the daily average values were
calculated correctly, the rule requires owners and operators to keep
all data. The EPA also does not believe that the approach in
Sec. 63.152(g) of the HON would be appropriate for this rule because,
unlike this rule, the HON regulates emission streams with continuous
flow.
2. Reporting Burden
Some commenters stated that the requirement in the proposed rule to
submit a Precompliance report should be deleted. Additionally, some
commenters requested that the proposed frequency for submitting
periodic reports should be changed from quarterly to semiannually to be
consistent with other MACT standards.
The final rule retains the requirement to submit a Precompliance
report (or Precompliance plan in the final rule). The EPA believes the
Precompliance plan is a valuable tool for the regulatory agency that
will be making compliance determinations for the affected source. It
provides an enforcement official or inspector with some initial
background information about the process being controlled, the types of
emissions associated with the process, corresponding control equipment,
and the monitoring parameters that have been or will be correlated to
the process conditions. The Precompliance plan is also the mechanism by
which the affected source requests approval to use alternative
monitoring parameters and to use calculations or other compliance
procedures that differ from those prescribed in the rule. Because many
of the compliance procedures for this rule are more complicated than
those for the HON, EPA believes the Precompliance plan requirement is
warranted for this industry and has retained the provision in the final
rule.
The EPA has also reevaluated the overall reporting requirements in
the proposed rule and compared the proposed reporting requirements with
requirements in rules for similar industries. As a result, the Agency
decided to change the periodic reporting from quarterly to
semiannually. In those cases where continuous emission monitoring data
are used to demonstrate compliance with the 20ppmv alternative
standards, and the source experiences excess emissions, quarterly
reporting is required until a request to reduce reporting frequency is
approved. Section 63.1368(g) in the final rule is now titled ``Periodic
reports'' and details the submittal schedule and content of the
required Periodic reports. Also, as a result of comments, the final
rule now requires that equipment leak reports be included with the
Notification of Compliance Status report and the Periodic reports. The
final rule requires that the Periodic reports be submitted within 60
operating days after the end of the applicable reporting period.
Other changes made to the final rule as a result of comments
include the addition of a new section to address the submittal of
information describing process changes or changes made in the
information submitted as part of the Notification of Compliance Status
[[Page 33585]]
report. This information must be submitted within 90 days after the
changes are made. The information may be included as part of a Periodic
report, if one is to be submitted within the 90-day period. The
information to be reported is to include: a brief description of the
process change, a description of any modifications to standard
procedures or quality assurance procedures, revisions to any of the
information reported in the original Notification of Compliance Status
Report, and information required by the Notification of Compliance
Status report for changes involving the addition of processes or
equipment.
3. Date for Submittal of Notification of Compliance Status Report
One commenter stated that the Notification of Compliance Status
report submittal date in the proposed rule conflicts with the
requirements of the General Provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2) to complete
performance testing within 180 days and Sec. 63.10(d)(2) to submit
performance test reports within 60 days after tests.
The submittal date for the Notification of Compliance Status report
in Sec. 63.1368(f) of the final rule does not conflict with the General
Provisions requirements in Secs. 63.7(a)(2) and 63.10(d)(2), it
supersedes it. As noted in Table 1 to Subpart MMM--General Provisions
Applicability to Subpart MMM, ``[T]est results must be submitted in the
Notification of Compliance Status report due 150 days after the
compliance date.'' This means that the performance testing and the
compilation of the test results must be completed and submitted as part
of the Notification of Compliance Status report which is due within 150
days after the compliance date. Additional language was added to the
final rule under Sec. 63.1368(a) to clarify which of the reporting
requirements of subpart A (General Provisions) remain in effect for
this rule and which requirements have been superseded.
O. Miscellaneous
1. Environmental Impacts
One commenter believes EPA did not adequately consider the
secondary air impacts of nitrogen oxide (NOX) formation
caused by combusting nitrogen-bearing HAP (and non-HAP VOC that may
also be present) in process vent streams and wastewater.
The impacts analysis was based on a small number of model streams
with characteristics that represent typical or average characteristics
of streams at the surveyed facilities. Very little nitrogen-bearing HAP
is emitted from the surveyed facilities (less than 5 percent of both
the total uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from process vents and the
HAP load in wastewater streams), and most of these HAP are controlled
to the level of the standard. Therefore, the model emission streams
that were used to estimate secondary air impacts did not include
nitrogen-bearing HAP. In addition, any small underestimate in the
NOX emissions from nitrogen-bearing HAP is likely more than
offset by the use of conservative estimates in the original analysis.
For example, the estimated increase in NOX emissions were
based solely on the emissions associated with operation of the more
efficient controls needed to achieve the level of the standards;
emissions from existing controls that would be replaced were assumed to
be negligible.
2. Cost Impacts
Two commenters believe EPA underestimated the costs to comply with
the proposed rule. Based on recent experience installing some of the
control devices that are used in the cost analysis, one commenter
believes the costs are ``significantly'' underestimated, especially
when the standard is more stringent than the floor. This commenter also
indicated that, based on the additional secondary air impact described
in the comment above, the cost analysis should consider the need to
install best available control technology (BACT) or RACT to control
NOX emissions.
The other commenter believes none of the models used in the cost
analysis adequately address the situation at the commenter's facility.
This commenter operates an affected source that emits carbon disulfide,
which, when burned, generates a significant amount of sulfur oxides
(SOX). The SOX is not an issue under the MACT
standard, but it is a criteria pollutant that would have to be
controlled under State regulations. As a result, the commenter believes
EPA's cost analysis underestimates the cost the commenter would face
for two reasons. First, the model is based on a thermal incinerator
with 70 percent recuperative heat recovery, but the commenter could not
use this control device because carbon disulfide has a low auto-
ignition temperature; they would have to use either a thermal
incinerator with no heat recovery or a regenerative thermal oxidizer
with 85 percent heat recovery. Second, the scrubber that follows the
incinerator would need to be able to control the SOX
emissions as well as HCl emissions.
The cost impacts were based on models that represent a range of
characteristics at actual facilities. The models are expected to
overestimate costs at some facilities and to underestimate costs at
others.
It is possible that installing a control device could trigger the
requirement for a BACT or RACT analysis. Typically, to trigger BACT
analysis, the control device would have to cause a net increase in
NOX emissions of 40 tons/yr (or any amount that has an
impact of 1 microgram per cubic meter within 10 kilometers of a class I
area). To increase emissions by 40 tons/yr would require a very large
incinerator; the incinerator to control the largest model process was
estimated to increase NOX emissions by only about 11 tons/
yr. Typically, a facility has only two PAI processes. Thus, even if all
emission streams are routed to the incinerator and the emission stream
contains nitrogen-bearing HAP, it will be a very unusual situation for
NOX emissions to increase by 40 tons/yr. Typically, RACT is
applied only to existing sources; thus, a new incinerator installed to
comply with today's final rule would not trigger RACT. As a result, EPA
did not include BACT or RACT technology in the models used in the
impacts analyses.
The SOX control also was not included in the cost
analysis because it is not a typical requirement, the amount of
SO2 control that would be needed is unknown, and the cost is
not expected to be significantly different from that for an HCl
scrubber. The total annual cost of a thermal incinerator with no heat
recovery is approximately equal to that for a thermal incinerator with
70 percent recuperative heat recovery. The annual auxiliary fuel costs
would be higher for the incinerator without heat recovery, but these
costs are nearly offset by lower capital costs, which would result in
lower capital recovery costs. Although the performance of a given
scrubber will be better for HCl than for SO2, a scrubber can
easily be designed to obtain excellent SO2 removal
efficiencies.
3. Economic Impacts
One commenter believes EPA has not adequately evaluated the impact
of the proposed rule on small businesses. The commenter notes that the
regulatory flexibility analysis finds minimal impact on small
businesses, but the docket states that the two known small firms for
which data were available were not surveyed to find the impact of the
regulation on them. The commenter believes a survey of small businesses
is needed; otherwise the impact on them is unknown. This issue is
important to the commenter because at the time facilities responded to
the section 114
[[Page 33586]]
information request, the commenter's plant was part of a large
business, but it has since been sold and is now classified as a small
business.
The EPA reevaluated the economic impact using revenue data for the
commenter's facility. Using Dun & Bradstreet data, EPA estimates that
the cost-to-revenue ratio for this small business is approximately 2.3
percent. As noted at proposal, the control costs for model small
businesses were also estimated to be less than 3 percent of revenue for
model plants. This percentage suggests that the final rule will not
significantly impact small firms in the PAI manufacturing industry.
4. Standards for Possible Endocrine Disruptors
In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA solicited comment on
whether the risk posed by possible endocrine disruptors warrants more
stringent requirements than those proposed. Numerous commenters opposed
the development of more stringent requirements; none supported the
idea. The commenters cited the following reasons for not developing
more stringent requirements: (1) The science for determining disrupting
properties of chemicals and their risks is still under development; (2)
technology-based standards are not appropriate to address endocrine
disruption; (3) endocrine disruption is not an adverse endpoint, but a
mechanism of action; (4) the compounds are emitted in small quantities;
and (5) this has not been an issue under other MACT standards that
address essentially the same materials.
In the proposal preamble, EPA indicated that available information
shows emissions of possible endocrine disruptors is very low relative
to other HAP emissions. Based on these data and the comments, EPA has
decided not to include more stringent requirements for possible
endocrine disruptors in today's final rule. Today's final rule does not
preclude the possibility that EPA may take action on endocrine
disruptors in the future as new information becomes available.
5. Risk-Based Standards for HCl
The preamble to the proposed rule explained that section 112(d)(4)
of the CAA provides EPA with authority, at its discretion, to develop
risk-based standards for HAP ``for which a health threshold has been
established,'' provided that the standard achieves an ``ample margin of
safety.'' Because HCl is a threshold pollutant that is emitted from PAI
manufacturing facilities, EPA solicited comment on the adequacy,
desirability, and feasibility of developing a risk-based standard
instead of a MACT standard for HCl emissions from PAI manufacturing
facilities. One commenter opposed the development of a risk-based
standard for HCl emissions because it would delay promulgation of the
rule. Another commenter opposed development of a risk-based standard
because the commenter believes the proposed requirements, in
conjunction with permit limitations based on ambient concentrations,
are protective of the environment and human health. Another commenter
supported EPA's determination of HCl as a threshold pollutant.
The EPA agrees with the commenter that a risk-based approach would
delay promulgation of the rule. Given the relatively small potential
difference between a MACT-based standard and a risk-based standard, EPA
believes that the small benefits are substantially outweighed by the
burden to EPA and the industry of collecting and analyzing the data
needed for a risk-based standard.
VII. Technical Amendment to 40 CFR Part 9
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
technical correction amends the table that lists the OMB control
numbers issued under the PRA for this final rule.
The EPA is today amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 (section 9.1)
of currently approved information collection request (ICR) control
numbers issued by OMB for various regulations. The affected regulations
are codified at 40 CFR part 63 subpart MMM, Secs. 63.1366 and 63.1367
(recordkeeping and reporting requirements, respectively). The OMB
control (tracking) number for this final rule is 2060-0370. The EPA
will continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated table
format to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the Agency's regulations and
in each CFR volume containing EPA regulations. The table lists the
section numbers with reporting and recordkeeping requirements and the
current OMB control numbers. The listing of the OMB control numbers and
their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the requirements of
the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at
5 CFR part 1320.
This ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior
to OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds that there is ``good cause''
under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice and comment. Due to
the technical nature of the table, further notice and comment would be
unnecessary.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by EPA in the development of the
final standards. The principal purposes of the docket are:
(1) To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can intelligently and effectively participate in
the rulemaking process; and
(2) To serve as the record in case of judicial review (except for
interagency review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A))).
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of this
Executive Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the OMB has
notified EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action''
under criterion number four of the Executive Order. The EPA submitted
this action for OMB review. The OMB cleared this action without any
comments.
C. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute that creates a mandate upon a State, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or
[[Page 33587]]
EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting,
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of
Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communication
from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities because they do not own or operate sources subject to this
rule and therefore are not required to purchase control systems to meet
the requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the requirements of section
1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. The rule does not affect
these entities because they do not own or operate sources subject to
this rule and therefore are not required to purchase control systems to
meet the requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The OMB has approved the information collection requirements
contained in this rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB Control Number 2060-
0370.
The EPA is required under section 112(d) of the CAA to regulate
emissions of HAP listed in section 112(b). The requested information is
needed as part of the overall compliance and enforcement program. The
ICR requires that pesticide active ingredient production facilities
retain records of control device monitoring and records of HAP
emissions calculations at facilities for a period of 5 years, which is
consistent with the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and the
operating permit requirements under 40 CFR part 70. All sources subject
to this rule will be required to obtain operating permits either
through the State-approved permitting program or, if one does not
exist, in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 71, when
promulgated.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 289 hours per respondent for each of the first 3
years following promulgation. Beginning in the fourth year after
promulgation, existing facilities must comply with the monitoring
requirements, which will result in a significant increase in the burden
to the industry. It is also estimated that there are approximately 82
facilities that are likely respondents. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to: review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The EPA
is amending Table 9.1 in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR
control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the
information collection requirements contained in this final rule.
F. Regulatory Flexibility
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. The
EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In screening the potential impacts on small entities, the EPA found
that there are three companies operating in the PAI production industry
that will be subject to the final rule that are considered ``small''
businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The
SBA defines small businesses in SIC 2879 as a firm with fewer than 500
employees. The majority of facilities are owned by large chemical
manufacturers having greater than 500 employees. In all instances, the
average total annual cost for each of the affected small firms is less
than 3 percent of company-wide sales revenues. The screening analysis
for this rule is detailed in the Economic Impact Analysis and a
subsequent memorandum (see Docket No. A-95-20, Docket item no. II-A-20
and IV-B-7).
G. Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section
[[Page 33588]]
205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the
least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if
the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that the final standards do not include a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
by either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector, in any 1 year. The rule does not impose any
enforceable duties on State, local, or tribal governments because they
do not own or operate sources subject to this rule and therefore are
not required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of
this rule. The annual economic impact on the private sector will be far
less than $100 million--the estimated cost impact is $39.4 million/yr,
as discussed in section IV.D. of today's final rule. The rule also
contains no requirements that will significantly or uniquely impact
small governments; the rule contains no requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, the
requirements of the UMRA do not apply to this final rule.
H. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2).
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113 (March 7, 1996), directs all Federal
agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) developed or
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA requires
Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB,
with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. This section summarizes the EPA's
response to the requirements of the NTTAA for the analytical and test
methods to be required by today's final rule.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted a search to identify
voluntary consensus standards. The search identified 22 voluntary
consensus standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA
standard reference methods in this rule. However, after reviewing
available standards, EPA determined that 14 of the candidate consensus
standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates
subject to emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to
lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data or other important
technical and policy considerations. Eight of the remaining candidate
consensus standards are new standards under development that EPA plans
to follow, review, and consider adopting at a later date.
One consensus standard, ASTM Z7420Z, is potentially practical for
EPA use in lieu of EPA Method 18 (See 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A). At
the time of EPA's search, the ASTM standard was still under development
and EPA had provided comments on the method. The EPA also compared a
draft of this ASTM standard to methods previously approved as
alternatives to EPA Method 18 with specific applicability limitations.
These methods, designated as ALT-017 and CTM-028, are available through
EPA's Emission Measurement Center Internet site at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/
tmethods.html. The proposed ASTM Z7420Z standard is very similar to
these approved alternative methods. When finalized and adopted by ASTM,
the standard may be equally suitable for specific applications.
However, this rule does not adopt the ASTM standard as it is not
practical to do so until the potential candidate is final and EPA has
reviewed the final standard. The EPA plans to continue to follow the
progress of the standard and will consider adopting the ASTM standard
at a later date.
This final rule requires standard EPA methods known to the industry
and States. Approved alternative methods also may be used with prior
EPA approval.
J. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. Today's final rule falls
into that category only in part: the minimum rule stringency is set
according to a congressionally-mandated, technology-based lower limit
called the ``floor,'' while a decision to increase the stringency
beyond this floor can be based on risk considerations only to the
extent that the Agency may consider the inherent toxicity of a
regulated pollutant, and any differential impact such a pollutant may
have on children's health, in deciding whether to adopt control
requirements more stringent than floor level.
Today's final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866.
No children's risk analysis was performed for this rulemaking because
no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency
at a reasonable cost, and therefore the results of any such analysis
would have no impact on the stringency decision. The MACT floor and
regulatory alternatives more stringent than the floor for process
[[Page 33589]]
vents, storage vessels, equipment leaks, and wastewater systems are
presented in Chapters 6 and 8 of the Basis and Purpose Document and
related memoranda (Docket A-95-20, Docket items II-B-21, III-B-1, IV-B-
2, and IV-B-3). For each of the four types of emission points, the
standards are based on the most stringent alternative for which the
cost was determined to be reasonable.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 13, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title
40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as
follows:
PART 9--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671g, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding in numerical order a new entry
to the table under the indicated heading to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control
40 CFR citation No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories.\3\
* * * * * *
*
63.1367-63.1368 2060-0370
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ICR's referenced in this section of the table encompass the applicable General Provisions contained in
40 CFR part 63, subpart A, which are not independent information collection requirements.
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et. seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding a new subpart MMM to read as
follows:
Subpart MMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
Sec.
63.1360 Applicability.
63.1361 Definitions.
63.1362 Standards.
63.1363 Standards for equipment leaks.
63.1364 Compliance dates.
63.1365 Test methods and initial compliance procedures.
63.1366 Monitoring and inspection requirements.
63.1367 Recordkeeping requirements.
63.1368 Reporting requirements.
63.1369 Delegation of authority.
Table 1 to Subpart MMM of part 63--General Provisions
Applicability to Subpart MMM.
Table 2 to Subpart MMM of part 63--Standards for New and
Existing PAI Production.
Table 3 to Subpart MMM of Part 63--Monitoring Requirements for
Control Devices.
Table 4 to Subpart MMM of Part 63--Control Requirements for
Items of Equipment that Meet the Criteria of Sec. 63.1362(k).
Subpart MMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
Sec. 63.1360 Applicability.
(a) Definition of affected source. The affected source subject to
this subpart is the facility-wide collection of pesticide active
ingredient manufacturing process units (PAI process units) that
process, use, or produce HAP, and are located at a plant site that is a
major source, as defined in section 112(a) of the CAA. An affected
source also includes waste management units, heat exchange systems, and
cooling towers that are associated with the PAI process units.
Exemptions from an affected source are specified in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(b) New source applicability. A new affected source subject to this
subpart and to which the requirements for new sources apply is defined
according to the criteria in either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this
section.
(1) An affected source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after November 10, 1997.
(2) Any single PAI process unit that:
(i) Is not part of a process unit group; and
(ii) For which construction, as defined in Sec. 63.1361, commenced
after November 10, 1997; and
(iii) Has the potential to emit 10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25
tons/yr of combined HAP.
(c) General provisions. Table 1 of this subpart specifies the
provisions of subpart A of this part that apply to an owner or operator
of an affected source subject to this subpart, and clarifies specific
provisions in subpart A of this part as necessary for this subpart.
(d) Exemptions from the requirements of this subpart. The
provisions of this subpart do not apply to:
(1) Research and development facilities;
(2) PAI process units that are subject to subpart F of this part;
(3) Production of ethylene; and
(4) The following emission points listed:
(i) Storm water from segregated sewers;
(ii) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems, including testing
of such systems;
(iii) Spills;
(iv) Water from safety showers;
(v) Noncontact steam boiler blowdown and condensate;
(vi) Laundry water;
[[Page 33590]]
(vii) Vessels storing material that contains no organic HAP or
contains organic HAP as impurities only; and
(viii) Equipment, as defined in Sec. 63.1363, that is intended to
operate in organic HAP service for less than 300 hours during the
calendar year.
(e) Applicability of this subpart except during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. (1) Each provision set forth in this subpart
shall apply at all times except that emission limitations shall not
apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, as defined
in Sec. 63.1361, if:
(i) The startup, shutdown, or malfunction precludes the ability of
the owner or operator of an affected source to comply with one or more
specific emission limitations to which a particular emission point is
subject; and
(ii) The owner or operator follows the provisions for periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, as specified in Secs. 63.1367(a)(3)
and 63.1368(i).
(2) The provisions set forth in Sec. 63.1363 shall apply at all
times except during periods of nonoperation of the PAI process unit (or
specific portion thereof) in which the lines are drained and
depressurized resulting in the cessation of the emissions to which
Sec. 63.1363 applies.
(3) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment
that are required or utilized for compliance with the emissions
limitations of this subpart during times when emissions (or, where
applicable, wastewater streams or residuals) are being routed to such
items of equipment, if the shutdown would contravene emissions
limitations of this subpart applicable to such items of equipment. This
paragraph does not apply if the item of equipment is malfunctioning, or
if the owner or operator must shut down the equipment to avoid damage
due to a malfunction of the PAI process unit or portion thereof.
(4) During startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when the emissions
limitations of this subpart do not apply pursuant to paragraphs (e)(1)
through (3) of this section, the owner or operator shall implement, to
the extent reasonably available, measures to prevent or minimize excess
emissions. For purposes of this paragraph, ``excess emissions'' means
emissions in excess of those that would have occurred if there were no
startup, shutdown, or malfunction and the owner or operator complied
with the relevant provisions of this subpart. The measures to be taken
shall be identified in the applicable startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, and may include, but are not limited to, air
pollution control technologies, work practices, pollution prevention,
monitoring, and/or changes in the manner of operation of the source.
Back-up control devices are not required, but may be used if available.
(f) Storage vessel applicability determination. An owner or
operator shall follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (4) of this section to determine whether a storage vessel is
part of the affected source to which this subpart applies.
(1) If a storage vessel is already subject to another subpart of 40
CFR part 63 on June 23, 1999, the storage vessel shall belong to the
process unit subject to the other subpart.
(2) Unless otherwise excluded under paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, the storage vessel is part of a PAI process unit if either the
input to the vessel from the PAI process unit is greater than or equal
to the input from any other PAI or non-PAI process unit, or the output
from the vessel to the PAI process unit is greater than or equal to the
output to any other PAI or non-PAI process unit. If the greatest input
to and/or output from a shared storage vessel is the same for two or
more process units, including at least one PAI process unit, the owner
or operator may assign the storage vessel to any one of the PAI process
units that meet this condition. If the use varies from year to year,
then the use for purposes of this subpart for existing sources shall be
based on the utilization that occurred during the year preceding June
23, 1999 or, if the storage vessel was not in operation during that
year, the use shall be based on the expected use in the 5 years after
startup. This determination shall be reported as part of an operating
permit application or as otherwise specified by the permitting
authority.
(3) Unless otherwise excluded under paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, where a storage vessel is located in a tank farm (including a
marine tank farm), the applicability of this subpart shall be
determined according to the provisions in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through
(iv) of this section.
(i) The storage vessel may only be assigned to a process unit that
utilizes the storage vessel and does not have an intervening storage
vessel for that product (or raw material, as appropriate). With respect
to a process unit, an intervening storage vessel means a storage vessel
connected by hard-piping to the process unit and to the storage vessel
in the tank farm so that product or raw material entering or leaving
the process unit flows into (or from) the intervening storage vessel
and does not flow directly into (or from) the storage vessel in the
tank farm.
(ii) If no PAI process unit meets the criteria of paragraph
(f)(3)(i) of this section with respect to a storage vessel, this
subpart does not apply to the storage vessel.
(iii) If only one PAI process unit, and no non-PAI process unit,
meets the criteria of paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section with respect
to a storage vessel, the storage vessel shall be assigned to that PAI
process unit.
(iv) If two or more process units, including at least one PAI
process unit, meet the criteria of paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section
with respect to a storage vessel, the storage vessel shall be assigned
to one of those process units according to the provisions of paragraph
(f)(2) of this section. The input and output shall be determined among
only those process units that meet the criteria of paragraph (f)(3)(i)
of this section. If the storage vessel is not assigned to a PAI process
unit according to the provisions of paragraph (f)(2) of this section,
this subpart does not apply to the storage vessel.
(4) If the storage vessel begins receiving material from (or
sending material to) another process unit, or ceasing to receive
material from (or send material to) a PAI process unit, or if the
applicability of this subpart has been determined according to the
provisions of paragraph (f)(2) of this section, and there is a
significant change in the use of the storage vessel, the owner or
operator shall reevaluate the ownership determination for the storage
vessel.
(g) Designating production of an intermediate as a PAI process
unit. Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, an owner or
operator may elect to designate production of any intermediate that
does not meet the definition of integral intermediate as a PAI process
unit subject to this subpart. Any storage vessel containing the
intermediate is assigned to a PAI process unit according to the
procedures in paragraph (f) of this section. Any process tank
containing the intermediate is part of the process unit used to produce
the intermediate.
(h) Applicability of process units included in a process unit
group. (1) If any of the products produced in the process unit group
are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG (Pharmaceuticals MACT), the
owner or operator may elect to comply with the requirements of subpart
GGG for the PAI process unit(s) within the process unit group, except
for the following:
(i) The emission limit standard for process vents in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(i) shall apply in place of Sec. 63.1254(a)(1) of
subpart GGG of this part;
[[Page 33591]]
(ii) When the date of April 2, 1997 is provided in
Sec. 63.1254(a)(iii) of subpart GGG of this part, the date of June 23,
1999 shall apply for purposes of this subpart; and
(iii) Requirements in Sec. 63.1367(a)(5) regarding application for
approval of construction or reconstruction shall apply in place of the
provisions in Sec. 63.1259(a)(5) of subpart GGG of this part.
(2) If the primary product of a process unit group is determined to
be a material that is subject to another subpart of 40 CFR part 63 on
June 23, 1999 or startup of the process unit group, whichever is later,
the owner or operator may elect to comply with the other subpart for
any PAI process unit within the process unit group.
(3) The primary product of the process unit group shall be
determined according to paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) The primary product is the product that is produced for the
greatest operating time over a 5 year period, based on expected
utilization for the 5 years following the compliance date or following
initial startup of the process unit group, whichever is later; or
(ii) If the process unit group produces multiple products equally
based on operating time, then the product with the greatest production
on a mass basis over 5 years shall represent the primary product of the
process unit, based on expected utilization for the 5 years following
the compliance date or following initial startup of the unit or unit
group, whichever is later.
(i) Overlap with other regulations. (1) Overlap with other MACT
standards. After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1364, an
affected source subject to the provisions of this subpart that is also
subject to the provisions of any other subpart of 40 CFR part 63 may
elect, to the extent the subparts are consistent, under which subpart
to maintain records and report to EPA. The affected source shall
identify in the Notification of Compliance Status report required by
Sec. 63.1368(f) under which authority such records will be maintained.
(2) Overlap with RCRA subparts AA, BB, and/or CC. After the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1364, if any affected source
subject to this subpart is also subject to monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 264, subpart AA, BB, or CC,
or is subject to monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR
part 265, subpart AA, BB, or CC, and the owner or operator complies
with the periodic reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 264, subpart
AA, BB, or CC that would apply to the device if the facility had final-
permitted status, the owner or operator may elect to comply either with
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this
subpart, or with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in 40 CFR parts 264 and/or 265, as described in this
paragraph, which shall constitute compliance with the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart. If the owner
or operator elects to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts 264 and/or 265, the owner or
operator shall report all excursions as required by Sec. 63.1368(g).
The owner or operator shall identify in the Notification of Compliance
Status report required by Sec. 63.1368(f) the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting authority under which the owner or
operator will comply.
(3) Overlap with NSPS subpart Kb. After the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.1364, a Group 1 or Group 2 storage vessel that is
also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, is
required to comply only with the provisions of this subpart MMM.
(4) Overlap with subpart I. After the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.1364, for all equipment within a process unit that contains
equipment subject to subpart I of this part, an owner or operator may
elect to comply with either the provisions of this subpart MMM or the
provisions of subpart H of this part. The owner or operator shall
identify in the Notification of Compliance Status report required by
Sec. 63.1368(f) the provisions with which the owner or operator elects
to comply.
(5) Overlap with RCRA regulations for wastewater. After the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1364, the owner or operator of an
affected wastewater stream that is also subject to provisions in 40 CFR
parts 260 through 272 shall comply with the more stringent control
requirements (e.g., waste management units, numerical treatment
standards, etc.) and the more stringent testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that overlap between the
provisions of this subpart and the provisions of 40 CFR parts 260
through 272. The owner or operator shall keep a record of the
information used to determine which requirements were the most
stringent and shall submit this information if requested by the
Administrator.
(6) Overlap with NSPS subparts III, NNN, and RRR. After the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1364, if an owner or operator of
a process vent subject to this subpart MMM that is also subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart III, or subpart NNN, or subpart
RRR, elects to reduce organic HAP emissions from the process vent by 98
percent as specified in Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iii)(A), then the owner or
operator is required to comply only with the provisions of this subpart
MMM. Otherwise, the owner or operator shall comply with the provisions
in both this subpart MMM and the provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subparts
III, NNN, and RRR, as applicable.
(j) Meaning of periods of time. All terms in this subpart MMM that
define a period of time for completion of required tasks (e.g., weekly,
monthly, quarterly, annual), unless specified otherwise in the section
or subsection that imposes the requirement, refer to the standard
calendar periods.
(1) Notwithstanding time periods specified in the subpart MMM for
completion of required tasks, such time periods may be changed by
mutual agreement between the owner and operator and the Administrator,
as specified in subpart A of this part (e.g., a period could begin on
the compliance date or another date, rather than on the first day of
the standard period). For each time period that is changed by
agreement, the revised period shall remain in effect until it is
changed. A new request is not necessary for each recurring period.
(2) Where the period specified for compliance is a standard
calendar period, if the initial compliance date occurs after the
beginning of the period, compliance shall be required according to the
schedule specified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, as
appropriate.
(i) Compliance shall be required before the end of the standard
calendar period within which the compliance deadline occurs, if there
remain at least 3 days for tasks that must be performed weekly, at
least 2 weeks for tasks that must be performed monthly, at least 1
month for tasks that must be performed each quarter, or at least 3
months for tasks that must be performed annually; or
(ii) In all other cases, compliance shall be required before the
end of the first full standard calendar period within which the initial
compliance deadline occurs.
(3) In all instances where a provision of this subpart MMM requires
completion of a task during each of multiple successive periods, an
owner or operator may perform the required task at any time during the
specified period, provided the task is conducted at a reasonable
interval after completion of the task in the previous period.
[[Page 33592]]
Sec. 63.1361 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in subpart A of
this part, or in this section. If the same term is defined in subpart A
of this part and in this section, it shall have the meaning given in
this section for the purposes of this subpart MMM.
Air pollution control device or control device means equipment
installed on a process vent, storage vessel, wastewater treatment
exhaust stack, or combination thereof that reduces the mass of HAP
emitted to the air. The equipment may consist of an individual device
or a series of devices. Examples include incinerators, carbon
adsorption units, condensers, flares, boilers, process heaters, and gas
absorbers. Process condensers are not considered air pollution control
devices or control devices.
Bag dump means equipment into which bags or other containers
containing a powdered, granular, or other solid feedstock material are
emptied. A bag dump is part of the process.
Batch emission episode means a discrete venting episode that is
associated with a single unit operation. A unit operation may have more
than one batch emission episode. For example, a batch distillation unit
operation may consist of batch emission episodes associated with
charging and heating. Charging the vessel with HAP will result in one
discrete batch emission episode that will last through the duration of
the charge and will have an average flowrate equal to the rate of the
charge. Another discrete batch emission episode will result from the
expulsion of expanded vapor as the contents of the vessel are heated.
Batch operation means a noncontinuous operation involving
intermittent or discontinuous feed into PAI or integral intermediate
manufacturing equipment, and, in general, involves the emptying of the
equipment after the batch operation ceases and prior to beginning a new
operation. Addition of raw material and withdrawal of product do not
occur simultaneously in a batch operation. A batch process consists of
a series of batch operations.
Bench-scale batch process means a batch process (other than a
research and development facility) that is capable of being located on
a laboratory bench top. This bench-scale equipment will typically
include reagent feed vessels, a small reactor and associated product
separator, recovery and holding equipment. These processes are only
capable of producing small quantities of product.
Block means a time period equal to, at a maximum, the duration of a
single batch.
Car seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used to
change the position of a valve (e.g., from opened to closed) in such a
way that the position of the valve cannot be changed without breaking
the seal.
Cleaning operation means routine rinsing, washing, or boil-off of
equipment in batch operations between batches.
Closed-loop system means an enclosed system that returns process
fluid to the process and is not vented to the atmosphere except through
a closed-vent system.
Closed-purge system means a system or combination of system and
portable containers, to capture purged liquids. Containers must be
covered or closed when not being filled or emptied.
Closed-vent system means a system that is not open to the
atmosphere and is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and, if
necessary, flow inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from an
emission point to a control device.
Combustion device means an individual unit of equipment, such as a
flare, incinerator, process heater, or boiler, used for the combustion
of organic HAP vapors.
Connector means flanged, screwed, or other joined fittings used to
connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and a piece of equipment. A
common connector is a flange. Joined fittings welded completely around
the circumference of the interface are not considered connectors for
the purpose of this regulation. For the purpose of reporting and record
keeping, connector means joined fittings that are not inaccessible,
ceramic, or ceramic-lined as described in Sec. 63.1255(b)(1)(vii) and
63.1255(f)(3).
Construction means the onsite fabrication, erection, or
installation of an affected source or PAI process unit. Addition of new
equipment to an existing PAI process unit does not constitute
construction.
Consumption means the makeup quantity of HAP entering a process
that is not used as reactant. The quantity of material used as reactant
is the theoretical amount needed assuming a 100 percent stoichiometric
conversion. Makeup is the net amount of material that must be added to
the process to replenish losses.
Container, as used in the wastewater provisions, means any portable
waste management unit that has a capacity greater than or equal to 0.1
m3 in which a material is stored, transported, treated, or
otherwise handled. Examples of containers are drums, barrels, tank
trucks, barges, dumpsters, tank cars, dump trucks, and ships.
Continuous process means a process where the inputs and outputs
flow continuously throughout the duration of the process. Continuous
processes typically approach steady state.
Continuous seal means a seal that forms a continuous closure that
completely covers the space between the wall of the storage vessel and
the edge of the floating roof. A continuous seal may be a vapor-
mounted, liquid-mounted, or metallic shoe seal.
Controlled HAP emissions means the quantity of HAP components
discharged to the atmosphere from an air pollution control device.
Cover, as used in the wastewater provisions, means a device or
system which is placed on or over a waste management unit containing
wastewater or residuals so that the entire surface area is enclosed to
minimize air emissions. A cover may have openings necessary for
operation, inspection, and maintenance of the waste management unit
such as access hatches, sampling ports, and gauge wells provided that
each opening is closed when not in use. Examples of covers include a
fixed roof installed on a wastewater tank, a lid installed on a
container, and an air-supported enclosure installed over a waste
management unit.
Double block and bleed system means two block valves connected in
series with a bleed valve or line that can vent the line between the
two block valves.
Duct work means a conveyance system such as those commonly used for
heating and ventilation systems. It is often made of sheet metal and
often has sections connected by screws or crimping. Hard-piping is not
ductwork.
Equipment, for purposes of Sec. 63.1363, means each pump,
compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling connection
system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, and instrumentation
system in organic hazardous air pollutant service.
External floating roof means a pontoon-type or double-deck type
cover that rests on the liquid surface in a storage tank or waste
management unit with no fixed roof.
FIFRA means the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act.
Fill or filling means the introduction of organic HAP into a
storage tank or the introduction of a wastewater stream or residual
into a waste management unit, but not necessarily to complete capacity.
First attempt at repair means to take action for the purpose of
stopping or
[[Page 33593]]
reducing leakage of organic material to the atmosphere.
Fixed roof means a cover that is mounted on a waste management unit
or storage tank in a stationary manner and that does not move with
fluctuations in liquid level.
Flame ionization detector (FID) means a device in which the
measured change in conductivity of a standard flame (usually hydrogen)
due to the insertion of another gas or vapor is used to detect the gas
or vapor.
Floating roof means a cover consisting of a double deck, pontoon
single deck, internal floating cover or covered floating roof, which
rests upon and is supported by the liquid being contained, and is
equipped with a continuous seal or seals to close the space between the
roof edge and waste management unit or storage vessel wall.
Flow indicator means a device that indicates whether gas flow is,
or whether the valve position would allow gas flow to be, present in a
line.
Group 1 process vent means any process vent from a process at an
existing or new affected source for which the uncontrolled organic HAP
emissions from the sum of all process vents are greater than or equal
to 0.15 Mg/yr and/or the uncontrolled hydogen chloride (HCl) and
chlorine emissions from the sum of all process vents are greater than
or equal to 6.8 Mg/yr.
Group 2 process vent means any process vent that does not meet the
definition of a Group 1 process vent.
Group 1 storage vessel means a storage vessel at an existing
affected source with a capacity equal to or greater than 75 m3
and storing material with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or
equal to 3.45 kPa, or a storage vessel at a new affected source with a
capacity equal to or greater than 40 m3 and storing material
with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 16.5 kPa
and with a capacity greater than or equal to 75 m3 and
storing material with a maximum true vapor pressure greater than or
equal to 3.45 kPa.
Group 2 storage vessel means a storage vessel that does not meet
the definition of a Group 1 storage vessel.
Group 1 wastewater stream means process wastewater at an existing
or new source that meets the criteria for Group 1 status in
Sec. 63.132(c) of subpart G of this part for compounds in Table 9 of
subpart G of this part or a maintenance wastewater stream that contains
5.3 Mg of HAP per discharge event.
Group 2 wastewater stream means any wastewater stream that does not
meet the definition of a Group 1 wastewater stream.
Group of processes means all of the equipment associated with
processes in a building, processing area, or facility-wide. A group of
processes may consist of a single process.
Halogenated compounds means organic compounds that contain chlorine
atoms.
Halogenated vent stream means a process, storage vessel, or waste
management unit vent stream determined to have a concentration of
halogenated compounds of greater than 20 ppmv, as determined through
process knowledge, test results using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, or test results using any other test method that has been
validated according to the procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of
this part.
Hard-piping means piping or tubing that is manufactured and
properly installed using good engineering judgment and standards, such
as ANSI B31-3.
Impurity means a substance that is produced coincidentally with the
product(s), or is present in a raw material. An impurity does not serve
a useful purpose in the production or use of the product(s) and is not
isolated.
In gas/vapor service means that a piece of equipment in organic HAP
service contains a gas or vapor at operating conditions.
In heavy liquid service means that a piece of equipment in organic
HAP service is not in gas/vapor service or in light liquid service.
In light liquid service means that a piece of equipment in organic
HAP service contains a liquid that meets the following conditions:
(1) The vapor pressure of one or more of the organic compounds is
greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 deg. C;
(2) The total concentration of the pure organic compounds
constituents having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 deg. C
is equal to or greater than 20 percent by weight of the total process
stream; and
(3) The fluid is a liquid at operating conditions.
Note: To definition of ``In light liquid service: Vapor
pressures may be determined by the methods described in 40 CFR
60.485(e)(1).
In liquid service means that a piece of equipment in organic HAP
service is not in gas/vapor service.
In organic hazardous air pollutant or in organic HAP service means
that a piece of equipment either contains or contacts a fluid (liquid
or gas) that is at least 5 percent by weight of total organic HAP as
determined according to the provisions of Sec. 63.180(d) of subpart H
of this part. The provisions of Sec. 63.180(d) of subpart H of this
part also specify how to determine that a piece of equipment is not in
organic HAP service.
In vacuum service means that equipment is operating at an internal
pressure which is at least 5 kPa below ambient pressure.
In-situ sampling systems means nonextractive samplers or in-line
samplers.
Individual drain system means the stationary system used to convey
wastewater streams or residuals to a waste management unit or to
discharge or disposal. The term includes: hard piping; all process
drains and junction boxes; and associated sewer lines, other junction
boxes, manholes, sumps, and lift stations conveying wastewater streams
or residuals. A segregated stormwater sewer system, which is a drain
and collection system designed and operated for the sole purpose of
collecting rainfall-runoff at a facility, and which is segregated from
all other individual drain systems, is excluded from this definition.
Instrumentation system means a group of equipment components used
to condition and convey a sample of the process fluid to analyzers and
instruments for the purpose of determining process operating conditions
(e.g., composition, pressure, flow, etc.). Valves and connectors are
the predominant type of equipment used in instrumentation systems;
however, other types of equipment may also be included in these
systems. Only valves nominally 0.5 inches and smaller and connectors
nominally 0.75 inches and smaller in diameter are considered
instrumentation systems for the purposes of this subpart. Valves
greater than nominally 0.5 inches and connectors greater than nominally
0.75 inches associated with instrumentation systems are not considered
part of instrumentation systems and must be monitored individually.
Integral intermediate means an intermediate for which 50 percent or
more of the annual production is used in on-site production of any
PAI(s) and that is not stored before being used in the production of
another integral intermediate or the PAI(s). For the purposes of this
definition, an intermediate is stored if it is discharged to a storage
vessel and at least one of the following conditions is met: the
processing equipment that discharges to the storage vessel is shutdown
before the processing equipment that withdraws from the storage vessel
is
[[Page 33594]]
started up; during an annual period, the material must be stored in the
vessel for at least 30 days before being used to make a PAI; or the
processing equipment that discharges to the storage vessel is located
in a separate building (or processing area) of the plant than the
processing equipment that uses material from the storage vessel as a
feedstock, and control equipment is not shared by the two processing
areas. Any process unit that produces an intermediate and is subject to
subpart F of this part is not an integral intermediate.
Intermediate means an organic compound that is produced by chemical
reaction and that is further processed or modified in one or more
additional chemical reaction steps to produce another intermediate or a
PAI.
Internal floating roof means a cover that rests or floats on the
liquid surface (but not necessarily in complete contact with it) inside
a storage tank or waste management unit that has a permanently affixed
roof.
Junction box means a manhole or access point to a wastewater sewer
system line or a lift station.
Large control device means a control device that controls process
vents, and the total HAP emissions into the control device from all
sources are greater than or equal to 10 tons/yr.
Liquid-mounted seal means a foam- or liquid-filled seal mounted in
contact with the liquid between the wall of the storage vessel or waste
management unit and the floating roof. The seal is mounted continuously
around the tank or unit.
Liquids dripping means any visible leakage from the seal including
dripping, spraying, misting, clouding, and ice formation. Indications
of liquid dripping include puddling or new stains that are indicative
of an existing evaporated drip.
Maintenance wastewater means wastewater generated by the draining
of process fluid from components in the PAI process unit into an
individual drain system prior to or during maintenance activities.
Maintenance wastewater can be generated through planned or unplanned
shutdowns and during periods not associated with a shutdown. Examples
of activities that can generate maintenance wastewaters include
descaling of heat exchanger tubing bundles, cleaning of distillation
column traps, draining of low legs and high point bleeds, draining of
pumps into an individual drain system, and draining of portions of the
PAI process unit for repair.
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, emissions
monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a
normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused all or in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
Maximum true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial pressure
exerted by the total organic HAP in the stored or transferred liquid at
the temperature equal to the highest calendar-month average of the
liquid storage or transferred temperature for liquids stored or
transferred above or below the ambient temperature or at the local
maximum monthly average temperature as reported by the National Weather
Service for liquids stored or transferred at the ambient temperature,
as determined:
(1) In accordance with methods described in Chapter 19.2 of the
American Petroleum Institute's Manual of Petroleum Measurement
Standards, Evaporative Loss From Floating-Roof Tanks (incorporated by
reference as specified in Sec. 63.14 in subpart A of this part); or
(2) As obtained from standard reference texts; or
(3) As determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials
Method D2879-97, Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by
Isoteniscope (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 63.14 of
subpart A of this part); or
(4) Any other method approved by the Administrator.
Metallic shoe seal or mechanical shoe seal means metal sheets that
are held vertically against the wall of the storage tank by springs,
weighted levers, or other mechanisms and connected to the floating roof
by braces or other means. A flexible coated fabric (envelope) spans the
annular space between the metal sheet and the floating roof.
Nonrepairable means that it is technically infeasible to repair a
piece of equipment from which a leak has been detected without a
process shutdown.
Open-ended valve or line means any valve, except pressure relief
valves, having one side of the valve seat in contact with process fluid
and one side open to atmosphere, either directly or through open
piping.
Operating scenario, for the purposes of reporting and
recordkeeping, means a description of a PAI process unit, including:
identification of each wastewater point of determination (POD) and
process vent, their associated emissions episodes and durations, and
their associated level of control and control devices, as applicable;
calculations and engineering analyses required to demonstrate
compliance; and a description of operating and/or testing conditions
for any associated control device.
Organic compound, as used in the definitions of intermediate and
PAI, means any compound that contains both carbon and hydrogen with or
without other elements.
Organic HAP means those HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA
that are measured according to the procedures of Method 18 or Method
25A, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Pesticide active ingredient or PAI means any material that is an
active ingredient within the meaning of FIFRA section 2(a); that is
used to produce an insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide end use
pesticide product; that consists of one or more organic compounds; and
that must be labeled in accordance with 40 CFR part 156 for transfer,
sale, or distribution. These materials are typically described by North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Codes 325199 and
32532 (i.e., previously known as Standard Industrial Classification
System Codes 2869 and 2879). These materials are identified by product
classification codes 01, 21, 02, 04, 44, 07, 08, and 16 in block 19 on
EPA form 3540-16, the Pesticides Report for Pesticide-Producing
Establishments.
Pesticide active ingredient manufacturing process unit (PAI process
unit) means a process unit that is used to produce a material that is
primarily used as a PAI or integral intermediate. A PAI process unit
consists of: the process, as defined in this subpart; associated
storage vessels, as determined by the procedures in Sec. 63.1360(f);
equipment identified in Sec. 63.1362(l); connected piping and ducts;
and components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines,
valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems. A material is
primarily used as a PAI or integral intermediate if more than 50
percent of the projected annual production from a process unit in the 3
years after June 23, 1999 or startup, whichever is later, is used as a
PAI or integral intermediate; recordkeeping is required if the material
is used as a PAI or integral intermediate, but not as the primary use.
If the primary use changes to a PAI or integral intermediate, the
process unit becomes a PAI process unit unless it is already subject to
the HON. If the primary use changes from a PAI or integral intermediate
to another use, the process unit remains a PAI process unit. Any
process tank containing an
[[Page 33595]]
integral intermediate is part of the PAI process unit used to produce
the integral intermediate. A process unit that produces an intermediate
that is not an integral intermediate may be designated as a PAI process
unit according to the procedures of Sec. 63.1360(g). Formulation of
pesticide products is not considered part of a PAI process unit.
Quality assurance and quality control laboratories are not considered
part of a PAI process unit.
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that
are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity,
subsidiary, or any combination thereof.
Point of determination (POD) means each point where a wastewater
stream exits the PAI process unit.
Note to definition of ``point of determination'': The regulation
allows determination of the characteristics of a wastewater stream:
at the point of determination; or downstream of the point of
determination if corrections are made for changes in flow rate and
annual average concentration of Table 9 compounds as determined in
Sec. 63.144 of subpart G of this part. Such changes include: losses
by air emissions, reduction of annual average concentration or
changes in flow rate by mixing with other water or wastewater
streams, and reduction in flow rate or annual average concentration
by treating or otherwise handling the wastewater stream to remove or
destroy HAP.
Pressure release means the emission of materials resulting from the
system pressure being greater than the set pressure of the pressure
relief device. This release can be one release or a series of releases
over a short time period due to a malfunction in the process.
Pressure relief device or valve means a safety device used to
prevent operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable
working pressure of the process equipment. A common pressure relief
device is a spring-loaded pressure relief valve. Devices that are
actuated either by a pressure of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds per
square inch gauge or by a vacuum are not pressure relief devices.
Process means a logical grouping of processing equipment which
collectively function to produce a product. For the purpose of this
subpart, a PAI process includes all, or a combination of, reaction,
recovery, separation, purification, treatment, cleaning, and other
activities or unit operations, which are used to produce a PAI or
integral intermediate. A PAI process and all integral intermediate
processes for which 100 percent of the annual production is used in the
production of the PAI may be linked together and defined as a single
PAI process unit.
Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to
recover material as an integral part of a unit operation. The condenser
must cause a vapor-to-liquid phase change for periods during which the
temperature of liquid in the process equipment is at or above its
boiling or bubble point. Examples of process condensers include
distillation condensers, reflux condensers, and condensers used in
stripping or flashing operation. In a series of condensers, all
condensers up to and including the first condenser with an exit gas
temperature below the boiling or bubble point of the liquid in the
process equipment are considered to be process condensers. All
condensers in line prior to the vacuum source are included in this
definition.
Process shutdown means a work practice or operational procedure
that stops production from a process or part of a process during which
it is technically feasible to clear process material from a process or
part of a process consistent with safety constraints and during which
repairs can be effected. An unscheduled work practice or operational
procedure that stops production from a process or part of a process for
less than 24 hours is not a process shutdown. An unscheduled work
practice or operational procedure that would stop production from a
process or part of a process for a shorter period of time than would be
required to clear the process or part of the process of materials and
start up the process, and would result in greater emissions than delay
of repair of leaking components until the next scheduled process
shutdown, is not a process shutdown. The use of spare equipment and
technically feasible bypassing of equipment without stopping production
are not process shutdowns.
Process tank means a tank that is used to collect material
discharged from a feedstock storage vessel or equipment within the
process and transfer of this material to other equipment within the
process or a product storage vessel. Processing steps occur both
upstream and downstream of the tank within a given process unit. Surge
control vessels and bottoms receivers that fit these conditions are
considered process tanks.
Process unit means the equipment assembled and connected by pipes
or ducts to process raw materials and to manufacture an intended
product.
Process unit group means a group of process units that manufacture
PAI's and products other than PAI's by alternating raw materials or
operating conditions, or by reconfiguring process equipment. Only
process equipment that has been or could be part of a PAI process unit,
because of its function or capacity, is included in a process unit
group.
Process vent means a point of emission from processing equipment to
the atmosphere or a control device. The vent may be the release point
for an emission stream associated with an individual unit operation, or
it may be the release point for emission streams from multiple unit
operations that have been manifolded together into a common header.
Examples of process vents include, but are not limited to, vents on
condensers used for product recovery, bottom receivers, surge control
vessels, reactors, filters, centrifuges, process tanks, and product
dryers. A vent is not considered to be a process vent for a given
emission episode if the undiluted and uncontrolled emission stream that
is released through the vent contains less than 20 ppmv HAP, as
determined through process knowledge that no HAP are present in the
emission stream; using an engineering assessment as discussed in
Sec. 63.1365(b)(2)(ii); from test data collected using Method 1818 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A; or from test data collected using any other
test method that has been validated according to the procedures in
Method 301 of appendix A of this part. Process vents do not include
vents on storage vessels regulated under Sec. 63.1362(c), vents on
wastewater emission sources regulated under Sec. 63.1362(d), or pieces
of equipment regulated under Sec. 63.1363.
Process wastewater means wastewater which, during manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact with, or results from, the
production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished
product, by-product, or waste product. Examples include: product tank
drawdown or feed tank drawdown; water formed during a chemical reaction
or used as a reactant; water used to wash impurities from organic
products or reactants; water used to clean process equipment; water
used to cool or quench organic vapor streams through direct contact;
and condensed steam from jet ejector systems pulling vacuum on vessels
containing organics.
Product means the compound(s) or chemical(s) that are produced or
manufactured as the intended output of a process unit. Impurities and
wastes are not considered products.
[[Page 33596]]
Product dryer means equipment that is used to remove moisture or
other liquid from granular, powdered, or other solid PAI or integral
intermediate products prior to storage, formulation, shipment, or other
uses. The product dryer is part of the process.
Product dryer vent means a process vent from a product dryer
through which a gas stream containing gaseous pollutants (i.e., organic
HAP, HCl, or chlorine), particulate matter, or both are released to the
atmosphere or are routed to a control device.
Production-indexed HAP consumption factor (HAP factor) is the
result of dividing the annual consumption of total HAP by the annual
production rate, per process.
Production-indexed VOC consumption factor (VOC factor) is the
result of dividing the annual consumption of total VOC by the annual
production rate, per process.
Publicly owned treatment works (POTW) is defined at 40 CFR part
403.3(0).
Reactor means a device or vessel in which one or more chemicals or
reactants, other than air, are combined or decomposed in such a way
that their molecular structures are altered and one or more new organic
compounds are formed.
Recovery device, as used in the wastewater provisions, means an
individual unit of equipment capable of, and normally used for the
purpose of, recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive
heating value), use, reuse, or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse.
Examples of equipment that may be recovery devices include organic
removal devices such as decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation
units. To be a recovery device, a decanter and any other equipment
based on the operating principle of gravity separation must receive
only two-phase liquid streams.
Repaired means that equipment is adjusted, or otherwise altered, to
eliminate a leak as defined in the applicable paragraphs of
Sec. 63.1363.
Research and development facility means any stationary source whose
primary purpose is to conduct research and development, where the
operations are under the close supervision of technically trained
personnel, and is not engaged in the manufacture of products for
commercial sale, except in a de minimis manner.
Residual means any liquid or solid material containing Table 9
compounds (as defined in Sec. 63.111 of subpart G of this part) that is
removed from a wastewater stream by a waste management unit or
treatment process that does not destroy organics (nondestructive unit).
Examples of residuals from nondestructive wastewater management units
include the organic layer and bottom residue removed by a decanter or
organic-water separator and the overheads from a steam stripper or air
stripper. Examples of materials which are not residuals include: silt;
mud; leaves; bottoms from a steam stripper or air stripper; and
sludges, ash, or other materials removed from wastewater being treated
by destructive devices such as biological treatment units and
incinerators.
Safety device means a closure device such as a pressure relief
valve, frangible disc, fusible plug, or any other type of device which
functions exclusively to prevent physical damage or permanent
deformation to a unit or its air emission control equipment by venting
gases or vapors directly to the atmosphere during unsafe conditions
resulting from an unplanned, accidental, or emergency event. For the
purposes of this subpart, a safety device is not used for routine
venting of gases or vapors from the vapor headspace underneath a cover
such as during filling of the unit or to adjust the pressure in this
vapor headspace in response to normal daily diurnal ambient temperature
fluctuations. A safety device is designed to remain in a closed
position during normal operations and open only when the internal
pressure, or another relevant parameter, exceeds the device threshold
setting applicable to the air emission control equipment as determined
by the owner or operator based on manufacturer recommendations,
applicable regulations, fire protection and prevention codes, standard
engineering codes and practices, or other requirements for the safe
handling of flammable, combustible, explosive, reactive, or hazardous
materials.
Sampling connection system means an assembly of equipment within a
process unit used during periods of representative operation to take
samples of the process fluid. Equipment used to take nonroutine grab
samples is not considered a sampling connection system.
Sensor means a device that measures a physical quantity or the
change in a physical quantity, such as temperature, pressure, flow
rate, pH, or liquid level.
Set pressure means the pressure at which a properly operating
pressure relief device begins to open to relieve atypical process
system operating pressure.
Sewer line means a lateral, trunk line, branch line, or other
conduit including, but not limited to, grates, trenches, etc., used to
convey wastewater streams or residuals to a downstream waste management
unit.
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of a continuous PAI
process unit for any purpose. Shutdown also means the cessation of a
batch PAI process unit or any related individual piece of equipment
required or used to comply with this part or for emptying and degassing
storage vessels for periodic maintenance, replacement of equipment,
repair, or any other purpose not excluded from this definition.
Shutdown does not apply to cessation of a batch PAI process unit at the
end of a campaign or between batches (e.g., for rinsing or washing
equipment), for routine maintenance, or for other routine operations.
Small control device means a control device that controls process
vents, and the total HAP emissions into the control device from all
sources are less than 10 tons of HAP per year.
Startup means the setting in operation of a continuous PAI process
unit for any purpose, the first time a new or reconstructed batch PAI
process unit begins production, or, for new equipment added, including
equipment used to comply with this subpart, the first time the
equipment is put into operation. For batch process units, startup does
not apply to the first time the equipment is put into operation at the
start of a campaign to produce a product that has been produced in the
past, after a shutdown for maintenance, or when the equipment is put
into operation as part of a batch within a campaign. As used in
Sec. 63.1363, startup means the setting in operation of a piece of
equipment or a control device that is subject to this subpart.
Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel that is used to store
organic liquids that contain one or more HAP and that has been
assigned, according to the procedures in Sec. 63.1360(f) or (g), to a
PAI process unit that is subject to this subpart MMM. The following are
not considered storage vessels for the purposes of this subpart:
(1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks,
railcars, barges, or ships;
(2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere;
(3) Vessels storing material that contains no organic HAP or
contains organic HAP only as impurities;
(4) Wastewater storage tanks;
(5) Process tanks; and
(6) Nonwastewater waste tanks.
Supplemental gases means any nonaffected gaseous streams (streams
[[Page 33597]]
that are not from process vents, storage vessels, equipment or waste
management units) that contain less than 20 ppmv TOC and less than 20
ppmv total HCl and chlorine, as determined through process knowledge,
and are combined with an affected vent stream. Supplemental gases are
often used to maintain pressures in manifolds or for fire and explosion
protection and prevention. Air required to operate combustion device
burner(s) is not considered a supplemental gas.
Surface impoundment means a waste management unit which is a
natural topographic depression, manmade excavation, or diked area
formed primarily of earthen materials (although it may be lined with
manmade materials), which is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid
wastes or waste containing free liquids. A surface impoundment is used
for the purpose of treating, storing, or disposing of wastewater or
residuals, and is not an injection well. Examples of surface
impoundments are equalization, settling, and aeration pits, ponds, and
lagoons.
Total organic compounds (TOC) means those compounds measured
according to the procedures of Method 18 or Method 25A, 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A.
Treatment process means a specific technique that removes or
destroys the organics in a wastewater or residual stream such as a
steam stripping unit, thin-film evaporation unit, waste incinerator,
biological treatment unit, or any other process applied to wastewater
streams or residuals to comply with Sec. 63.138 of subpart G of this
part. Most treatment processes are conducted in tanks. Treatment
processes are a subset of waste management units.
Uncontrolled HAP emissions means a gas stream containing HAP which
has exited the process (or process condenser, if any), but which has
not yet been introduced into an air pollution control device to reduce
the mass of HAP in the stream. If the process vent is not routed to an
air pollution control device, uncontrolled emissions are those HAP
emissions released to the atmosphere.
Unit operation means those processing steps that occur within
distinct equipment that are used, among other things, to prepare
reactants, facilitate reactions, separate and purify products, and
recycle materials. Equipment used for these purposes includes, but is
not limited to, reactors, distillation units, extraction columns,
absorbers, decanters, dryers, condensers, and filtration equipment.
Vapor-mounted seal means a continuous seal that completely covers
the annular space between the wall of the storage tank or waste
management unit and the edge of the floating roof, and is mounted such
that there is a vapor space between the stored liquid and the bottom of
the seal.
Volatile organic compounds are defined in 40 CFR 51.100.
Waste management unit means the equipment, structure(s), and/or
device(s) used to convey, store, treat, or dispose of wastewater
streams or residuals. Examples of waste management units include
wastewater tanks, surface impoundments, individual drain systems, and
biological wastewater treatment units. Examples of equipment that may
be waste management units include containers, air flotation units, oil-
water separators or organic-water separators, or organic removal
devices such as decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation units.
If such equipment is a recovery device, then it is part of a PAI
process unit and is not a waste management unit.
Wastewater means water that meets either of the conditions
described in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition and is discarded
from a PAI process unit that is at an affected source:
(1) Is generated from a PAI process and contains either:
(i) An annual average concentration of compounds in Table 9 of
subpart G of this part of at least 5 ppmw and has an average flow rate
of 0.02 L/min or greater; or
(ii) An annual average concentration of compounds in Table 9 of
subpart G of this part of at least 10,000 ppmw at any flow rate;
(2) Is generated from a PAI process unit as a result of maintenance
activities and contains at least 5.3 Mg of HAP per individual discharge
event.
Wastewater tank means a stationary waste management unit that is
designed to contain an accumulation of wastewater or residuals and is
constructed primarily of nonearthen materials (e.g., wood, concrete,
steel, plastic) which provide structural support. Wastewater tanks used
for flow equalization are included in this definition.
Water seal controls means a seal pot, p-leg trap, or other type of
trap filled with water (e.g., flooded sewers that maintain water levels
adequate to prevent air flow through the system) that creates a water
barrier between the sewer line and the atmosphere. The water level of
the seal must be maintained in the vertical leg of a drain in order to
be considered a water seal.
Sec. 63.1362 Standards.
(a) On and after the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1364,
each owner or operator of an affected source subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall control HAP emissions to the levels specified in
this section and in Sec. 63.1363, as summarized in Table 2 of this
subpart.
(b) Process vents. (1) The owner or operator of an existing source
shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this
section. The owner or operator of a new source shall comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section. Compliance
with paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(5) of this section shall be
demonstrated through the applicable test methods and initial compliance
procedures in Sec. 63.1365 and the monitoring requirements in
Sec. 63.1366.
(2) Organic HAP emissions from existing sources. The owner or
operator of an existing affected source must comply with the
requirements in either paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section or with the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The uncontrolled organic HAP emission rate shall not exceed
0.15 Mg/yr from the sum of all process vents within a process.
(ii) (A) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this
section, uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from a process vent shall
be reduced by 98 percent by weight or greater if the flow-weighted
average flowrate for the vent as calculated using Equation 1 of this
subpart is less than or equal to the flowrate calculated using Equation
2 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.001
Where:
FRa=flow-weighted average flowrate for the vent, scfm
Di=duration of each emission event, min
FRi=flowrate of each emission event, scfm
n=number of emission events
FR=flowrate, scfm
HL=annual uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, lb/yr, as defined in
Sec. 63.1361
(B) If the owner or operator can demonstrate that a control device,
installed on or before November 10, 1997 on a process vent otherwise
[[Page 33598]]
subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section,
reduces inlet emissions of total organic HAP by greater than or equal
to 90 percent by weight but less than 98 percent by weight, then the
control device must be operated to reduce inlet emissions of total
organic HAP by 90 percent by weight or greater.
(iii) Excluding process vents that are subject to the requirements
in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, uncontrolled organic HAP
emissions from the sum of all process vents within a process shall be
reduced by 90 percent or greater by weight.
(iv) As an alternative to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)
and (iii) of this section, uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from any
process vent may be reduced in accordance with any of the provisions in
paragraphs (b)(2)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section. All remaining
process vents within a process must be controlled in accordance with
paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
(A) To outlet concentrations less than or equal to 20 ppmv as TOC;
or
(B) By a flare that meets the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b); or
(C) By a control device specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(4); or
(D) In accordance with the alternative standard specified in
paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(3) HCl and Cl2 emissions from existing sources. For
each process, the owner or operator of an existing source shall comply
with the requirements of either paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this
section.
(i) The uncontrolled HCl and Cl2 emissions, including
HCl generated from the combustion of halogenated process vent
emissions, from the sum of all process vents within a process shall not
exceed 6.8 Mg/yr.
(ii) HCl and Cl2 emissions, including HCl generated from
combustion of halogenated process vent emissions, from the sum of all
process vents within a process shall be reduced by 94 percent or
greater or to outlet concentrations less than or equal to 20 ppmv.
(4) Organic HAP emissions from new sources. For each process, the
owner or operator of a new source shall comply with the requirements of
either paragraph (b)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) The uncontrolled organic HAP emissions shall not exceed 0.15
Mg/yr from the sum of all process vents within a process.
(ii) The uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the sum of all
process vents within a process at a new affected source that are not
controlled according to any of the requirements of paragraphs
(b)(4)(ii)(A) through (C) or (b)(6) of this section shall be reduced by
98 weight percent or greater.
(A) To outlet concentrations less than or equal to 20 ppmv as TOC;
or
(B) By a flare that meets the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b); or
(C) By a control device specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(4).
(5) HCl and Cl2 emissions from new sources. For each
process, the owner or operator of a new source shall comply with the
requirements of either paragraph (b)(5)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this
section.
(i) The uncontrolled HCl and Cl2 emissions, including
HCl generated from combustion of halogenated process vent emissions,
from the sum of all process vents within a process shall not exceed 6.8
Mg/yr.
(ii) If HCl and Cl2 emissions, including HCl generated
from combustion of halogenated process vent emissions, from the sum of
all process vents within a process are greater than or equal to 6.8 Mg/
yr and less than 191 Mg/yr, these HCl and Cl2 emissions
shall be reduced by 94 percent or to an outlet concentration less than
or equal to 20 ppmv.
(iii) If HCl and Cl2 emissions, including HCl generated
from combustion of halogenated process vent emissions, from the sum of
all process vents within a process are greater than 191 Mg/yr, these
HCl and Cl2 emissions shall be reduced by 99 percent or
greater or to an outlet concentration less than or equal to 20 ppmv.
(6) Alternative standard. As an alternative to the provisions in
paragraphs (b) (2) through (5) of this section, the owner or operator
may route emissions from a process vent to a control device or series
of control devices achieving an outlet TOC concentration, as calibrated
on methane or the predominant HAP, of 20 ppmv or less, and an outlet
concentration of HCl and Cl2 of 20 ppmv or less. Any process
vents within a process that are not routed to such a control device or
series of control devices must be controlled in accordance with the
provisions of paragraphs (b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(iv),
(b)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(iii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(ii), or (b)(5)(iii) of this
section, as applicable.
(c) Storage vessels. (1) The owner or operator shall either
determine the group status of a storage vessel or designate it as a
Group 1 storage vessel. If the owner or operator elects to designate
the storage vessel as a Group 1 storage vessel, the owner or operator
is not required to determine the maximum true vapor pressure of the
material stored in the storage vessel.
(2) Standard for existing sources. Except as specified in
paragraphs (c) (4) and (5) of this section, the owner or operator of a
Group 1 storage vessel at an existing affected source, as defined in
Sec. 63.1361, shall equip the affected storage vessel with one of the
following:
(i) A fixed roof and internal floating roof, or
(ii) An external floating roof, or
(iii) An external floating roof converted to an internal floating
roof, or
(iv) A closed vent system meeting the conditions of paragraph (k)
of this section and a control device that meets any of the following
conditions:
(A) Reduces organic HAP emissions by 95 percent by weight or
greater; or
(B) Reduces organic HAP emissions to outlet concentrations of 20
ppmv or less as TOC; or
(C) Is a flare that meets the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b); or
(D) Is a control device specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(4).
(3) Standard for new sources. Except as specified in paragraphs
(c)(4) and (5) of this section, the owner or operator of a Group 1
storage vessel at a new source, as defined in Sec. 63.1361, shall equip
the affected storage vessel in accordance with any one of paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(4) Alternative standard. As an alternative to the provisions in
paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, the owner or operator of an
existing or new affected source may route emissions from storage
vessels to a control device or series of control devices achieving an
outlet TOC concentration, as calibrated on methane or the predominant
HAP, of 20 ppmv or less, and an outlet concentration of hydrogen
chloride and chlorine of 20 ppmv or less.
(5) Planned routine maintenance. The owner or operator is exempt
from the specifications in paragraphs (c)(2) through (4) of this
section during periods of planned routine maintenance of the control
device that do not exceed 240 hr/yr.
(6) Compliance with the provisions of paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of
this section is demonstrated using the initial compliance procedures in
Sec. 63.1365(d) and the monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1366.
Compliance with the outlet concentrations in paragraph (c)(4) of this
section shall be determined by the initial compliance provisions in
Sec. 63.1365(a)(5) and the continuous emission monitoring requirements
of Sec. 63.1366(b)(5).
(d) Wastewater. The owner or operator of each affected source shall
comply with the requirements of Secs. 63.131 through 63.147 of subpart
G of
[[Page 33599]]
this part, with the differences noted in paragraphs (d)(1) through (13)
of this section for the purposes of this subpart.
(1) When the determination of equivalence criteria in
Sec. 63.102(b) is referred to in Secs. 63.132, 63.133, and 63.137 of
subpart G of this part, the provisions in Sec. 63.6(g) of subpart A of
this part shall apply.
(2) When the storage tank requirements contained in Secs. 63.119
through 63.123 of subpart G of this part are referred to in
Secs. 63.132 through 63.148 of subpart G of this part, Secs. 63.119
through 63.123 of subpart G of this part are applicable, with the
exception of the differences noted in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (v)
of this section.
(i) When the term ``storage vessel'' is used in Secs. 63.119
through 63.123 of subpart G of this part, the definition of the term
``storage vessel'' in Sec. 63.1361 shall apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
(ii) When December 31, 1992, is referred to in Sec. 63.119 of
subpart G of this part, November 10, 1997 shall apply for the purposes
of this subpart.
(iii) When April 22, 1994 is referred to in Sec. 63.119 of subpart
G of this part, June 23, 1999 shall apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
(iv) When the phrase ``the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.100
of subpart F of this part'' is referred to in Sec. 63.120 of subpart G
of this part, the phrase ``the compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.1364'' shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(v) When the phrase ``the maximum true vapor pressure of the total
organic HAP in the stored liquid falls below the values defining Group
1 storage vessels specified in Table 5 or Table 6 of this subpart'' is
referred to in Sec. 63.120(b)(1)(iv) of subpart G of this part, the
phrase, ``the maximum true vapor pressure of the total organic HAP in
the stored liquid falls below the values defining Group 1 storage
vessels specified in Sec. 63.1361'' shall apply for the purposes of
this subpart.
(3) To request approval to monitor alternative parameters, as
referred to in Sec. 63.146(a) of subpart G of this part, the owner or
operator shall comply with the procedures in Sec. 63.8(f) of subpart A
of this part, as referred to in Sec. 63.1366(b)(4), instead of the
procedures in Sec. 63.151(f) or (g) of subpart G of this part.
(4) When the Notification of Compliance Status report requirements
contained in Sec. 63.152(b) of subpart G of this part are referred to
in Sec. 63.146 of subpart G of this part, the Notification of
Compliance Status report requirements in Sec. 63.1368(f) shall apply
for the purposes of this subpart.
(5) When the recordkeeping requirements contained in Sec. 63.152(f)
of subpart G of this part are referred to in Sec. 63.147(d) of subpart
G of this part, the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.1367 shall
apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(6) When the Periodic report requirements contained in
Sec. 63.152(c) of subpart G of this part are referred to in
Secs. 63.146 and 63.147 of subpart G of this part, the Periodic report
requirements contained in Sec. 63.1368(g) shall apply for the purposes
of this subpart.
(7) When the term ``process wastewater'' is referred to in
Secs. 63.132 through 63.147 of subpart G of this part, the term
``wastewater'' as defined in Sec. 63.1361 shall apply for the purposes
of this subpart.
(8) When the term ``Group 1 wastewater stream'' is used in
Secs. 63.132 through 63.147 of subpart G of this part, the definition
of the term ``Group 1 wastewater stream'' in Sec. 63.1361 shall apply
for both new sources and existing sources for the purposes of this
subpart.
(9) The requirements in Secs. 63.132 through 63.147 for compounds
listed on Table 8 of subpart G of this part shall not apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
(10) When the total load of Table 9 compounds in the sum of all
process wastewater from PAI process units at a new affected source is
2,100 Mg/yr (2,300 tons/yr) or more, the owner or operator shall
reduce, by removal or destruction, the mass flow rate of all compounds
in Table 9 of subpart G of this part in all wastewater (process and
maintenance wastewater) by 99 percent or more. Alternatively, the owner
or operator may treat the wastewater in a unit identified in and
complying with Sec. 63.138(h) of subpart G of this part. The removal/
destruction efficiency shall be determined by the procedures specified
in Sec. 63.145(c) of subpart G of this part, for noncombustion
processes, or Sec. 63.145(d) of subpart G of this part, for combustion
processes.
(11) The compliance date for the affected source subject to the
provisions of this section is specified in Sec. 63.1364.
(12) The option in Sec. 63.139 of subpart G of this part to reduce
emissions from a control device to an outlet HAP concentration of 20
ppmv shall not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(13) The requirement to correct outlet concentrations from
combustion devices to 3 percent oxygen in Sec. 63.139(c)(1)(ii) of
subpart H of this part shall apply only if supplemental gases are
combined with affected vent streams. If emissions are controlled with a
vapor recovery system as specified in Sec. 63.139(c)(2) of subpart H of
this part, the owner or operator must correct for supplemental gases as
specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(7)(ii).
(14) If wastewater is sent offsite for biological treatment, the
waste management units up to the activated sludge unit must be covered,
or the owner or operator must demonstrate that less than 5 percent of
the total HAP on list 1 in Sec. 63.145(h) of subpart H of this part is
emitted from these units.
(e) Bag dumps and product dryers. (1) The owner or operator shall
reduce particulate matter emissions to a concentration not to exceed
0.01 gr/dscf from product dryers that dry a PAI or integral
intermediate that is a HAP.
(2) The owner or operator shall reduce particulate matter emissions
to a concentration not to exceed 0.01 gr/dscf from bag dumps that
introduce to a PAI process unit a feedstock that is a solid material
and a HAP, excluding bag dumps where the feedstock contains HAP only as
impurities.
(3) Gaseous HAP emissions from product dryers and bag dumps shall
be controlled in accordance with the provisions for process vent
emissions in paragraph (b) of this section.
(f) Heat exchange systems. Unless one or more of the conditions
specified in Sec. 63.104(a)(1) through (6) of subpart F of this part
are met, an owner or operator shall monitor each heat exchange system
that is used to cool process equipment in PAI process units that are
part of an affected source as defined in Sec. 63.1360(a) according to
the provisions in either Sec. 63.104(b) or (c) of subpart F of this
part. When the term ``chemical manufacturing process unit'' is used in
Sec. 63.104(c) of subpart F of this part, the term ``PAI process unit''
shall apply for the purposes of this subpart. Whenever a leak is
detected, the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements in
Sec. 63.104(d) of subpart F of this part. Delay of repair of heat
exchange systems for which leaks have been detected is allowed in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 63.104(e) of subpart F of this
part.
(g) Pollution prevention alternative. Except as provided in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section, for a process that has an initial
startup before November 10, 1997, an owner or operator may choose to
meet the pollution prevention alternative requirement specified in
either paragraph (g)(2) or (3) of this section for any PAI process
unit, in lieu of the requirements specified in paragraphs (b), (c),
(d), and (e) of this section and in Sec. 63.1363. Compliance with the
requirements of paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section shall be
[[Page 33600]]
demonstrated through the procedures in Secs. 63.1365(g) and 63.1366(f).
(1) A HAP must be controlled according to the requirements of
paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section and Sec. 63.1363 if
it is generated in the PAI process unit or an associated control device
and it is not part of the production-indexed HAP consumption factor
(HAP factor).
(2) The HAP factor shall be reduced by at least 85 percent from a
3-year average baseline beginning no earlier than the 1987 through 1989
calendar years. Alternatively, for a process that has been operating
for less than 3 years but more than 1 year, the baseline factor may be
calculated for the time period from startup of the process until the
present. For any reduction in the HAP factor achieved by reducing a HAP
that is also a VOC, an equivalent reduction in the production-indexed
VOC consumption factor (VOC factor) is also required (the equivalence
is determined on a mass basis, not a percentage basis). For any
reduction in the HAP factor that is achieved by reducing a HAP that is
not a VOC, the VOC factor may not be increased.
(3) As an alternative to the provisions in paragraph (g)(2) of this
section, the owner or operator may combine pollution prevention with
emissions control as specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) The HAP factor shall be reduced as specified in paragraph
(g)(2) of this section except that a reduction of at least 50 percent
shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph.
(ii) The total annual HAP emissions from the PAI process unit shall
be reduced by an amount that, when divided by the annual production
rate and added to the reduction of the HAP factor yields a value of at
least 85 percent of the baseline HAP factor. The total annual VOC
emissions from the process unit must be reduced by an amount equivalent
to the reduction in HAP emissions for each HAP that is a VOC (the
equivalence is determined on a mass basis). For HAP emissions
reductions that are achieved by reducing a HAP that is not a VOC, the
total annual VOC emissions may not be increased. The reduction in HAP
air emissions must be achieved using one of the following control
devices:
(A) Combustion control devices such as incinerators, flares, or
process heaters.
(B) Control devices such as condensers and carbon adsorbers whose
recovered product is destroyed or shipped offsite for destruction.
(C) Any control device that does not ultimately allow for recycling
of material back to the PAI process unit.
(D) Any control device for which the owner or operator can
demonstrate that the use of the device in controlling HAP emissions
will have no effect on the HAP factor for the PAI process unit.
(h) Emissions averaging provisions. Except as provided in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section, the owner or operator of
an existing affected facility may choose to comply with the emission
standards in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section by using
emissions averaging procedures specified in Sec. 63.1365(h) for organic
HAP emissions from any storage vessel, process, or waste management
unit that is part of an affected source subject to this subpart.
(1) A State may restrict the owner or operator of an existing
source to use only the procedures in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of
this section to comply with the emission standards where State
authorities prohibit averaging of HAP emissions.
(2) Emission points that are controlled as specified in paragraphs
(h)(2)(i) through (iii) may not be used to calculate emissions
averaging credits, unless a nominal efficiency has been assigned
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.150(i) of subpart G of this
part. The nominal efficiency must exceed the percent reduction required
by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for process vents and storage
vessels, respectively, and exceed the percent reduction required in
Sec. 63.138(e) or (f) of subpart G of this part for wastewater streams.
(i) Group 1 storage vessels controlled with an internal floating
roof meeting the specifications of Sec. 63.119(b) of subpart G of this
part, an external floating roof meeting the specifications of
Sec. 63.119(c) of subpart G of this part, or an external floating roof
converted to an internal floating meeting the specifications of
Sec. 63.119(d) of subpart G of this part.
(ii) Emission points controlled with a flare.
(iii) Wastewater controlled as specified in paragraphs
(h)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) With controls specified in Sec. 63.133 through Sec. 63.137 of
subpart G of this part;
(B) With a steam stripper meeting the specifications of
Sec. 63.138(d) of subpart G of this part.
(3) Process vents and storage vessels controlled with a control
device to an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv and wastewater streams
controlled in a treatment unit to an outlet concentration of 50 ppmw
may not be used in any averaging group.
(4) Maintenance wastewater streams and wastewater streams treated
in biological treatment units may not be included in any averaging
group.
(5) Processes which have been permanently shut down and storage
vessels permanently taken out of HAP service may not be included in any
averaging group.
(6) Emission points already controlled on or before November 15,
1990 may not be used to generate emissions averaging credits, unless
the level of control has been increased after November 15, 1990. In
these cases, credit will be allowed only for the increase in control
after November 15, 1990.
(7) Emission points controlled to comply with a State or Federal
rule other than this subpart may not be included in an emissions
averaging group, unless the level of control has been increased after
November 15, 1990, above what is required by the other State or Federal
rule. Only the control above what is required by the other State or
Federal rule will be credited. However, if an emission point has been
used to generate emissions averaging credit in an approved emissions
average, and the point is subsequently made subject to a State or
Federal rule other than this subpart, the point can continue to
generate emissions averaging credit for the purpose of complying with
the previously approved average.
(i) Opening of a safety device. Opening of a safety device, as
defined in Sec. 63.1361, is allowed at any time conditions require it
to avoid unsafe conditions.
(j) Closed-vent systems. The owner or operator of a closed-vent
system that contains bypass lines that could divert a vent stream away
from a control device used to comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section shall comply with the
requirements of Table 3 of this subpart and paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of
this section. Equipment such as low leg drains, high point bleeds,
analyzer vents, open-ended valves or lines, rupture disks and pressure
relief valves needed for safety purposes are not subject to this
paragraph.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that
determines whether vent stream flow is present at least once every 15
minutes. Records shall be maintained as specified in
Sec. 63.1367(f)(1). The flow indicator shall be installed at the
entrance to any bypass line that could divert the vent stream away from
the control device to the atmosphere; or
[[Page 33601]]
(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car
seal or lock and key type configuration. A visual inspection of the
seal or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every month
to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and the
vent stream is not diverted through the bypass line. Records shall be
maintained as specified in Sec. 63.1367(f)(2).
(k) Control requirements for certain liquid streams in open systems
within a PAI process unit. (1) The owner or operator shall comply with
the provisions of Table 4 of this subpart, for each item of equipment
meeting all the criteria specified in paragraphs (k)(2) through (4) of
this section and either paragraph (k)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(2) The item of equipment is of a type identified in Table 4 of
this subpart;
(3) The item of equipment is part of a PAI process unit as defined
in Sec. 63.1361;
(4) The item of equipment is controlled less stringently than in
Table 4 of this subpart, and the item of equipment is not otherwise
exempt from controls by the provisions of this subpart or subpart A of
this part;
(5) The item of equipment:
(i) Is a drain, drain hub, manhole, lift station, trench, pipe, or
oil/water separator that conveys water with a total annual average
concentration greater than or equal to 10,000 ppm by weight of
compounds in Table 9 of subpart G of this part at any flowrate; or a
total annual average concentration greater than or equal to 1,000 ppm
by weight of compounds in Table 9 of subpart G of this part at an
annual average flow rate greater than or equal to 10 liters per minute;
or
(ii) Is a tank that receives one or more streams that contain water
with a total annual average concentration greater than or equal to
1,000 ppm by weight of compounds in Table 9 of subpart G of this part
at an annual average flowrate greater than or equal to 10 liters per
minute. The owner or operator of the source shall determine the
characteristics of the stream as specified in paragraphs (k)(5)(ii)(A)
and (B) of this section.
(A) The characteristics of the stream being received shall be
determined at the inlet to the tank.
(B) The characteristics shall be determined according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.144(b) and (c) of subpart G of this part.
(l) Exemption for RCRA treatment units. An owner or operator shall
be exempt from the initial compliance demonstrations and monitoring
provisions in Secs. 63.1365 and 63.1366 and the associated
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Secs. 63.1367 and 63.1368
for emissions from process vents, storage vessels, and waste management
units that are discharged to the following devices:
(1) A boiler or process heater burning hazardous waste for which
the owner or operator:
(i) Has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and
complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H; or
(ii) Has certified compliance with the interim status requirements
of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H.
(2) A hazardous waste incinerator for which the owner or operator
has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and complies with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O, or has certified
compliance with the interim status requirements of 40 CFR part 265,
subpart O.
Sec. 63.1363 Standards for equipment leaks.
(a) General equipment leak requirements. (1) The provisions of this
section apply to ``equipment'' as defined in Sec. 63.1361 and any
closed-vent systems and control devices required by this subpart.
(2) Consistency with other regulations. After the compliance date
for a process, equipment subject to both this section and either of the
following will be required to comply only with the provisions of this
subpart:
(i) 40 CFR part 60.
(ii) 40 CFR part 61.
(3) [Reserved].
(4) The provisions in Sec. 63.1(a)(3) of subpart A of this part do
not alter the provisions in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(5) Lines and equipment not containing process fluids are not
subject to the provisions of this section. Utilities, and other
nonprocess lines, such as heating and cooling systems which do not
combine their materials with those in the processes they serve, are not
considered to be part of a process.
(6) The provisions of this section do not apply to bench-scale
processes, regardless of whether the processes are located at the same
plant site as a process subject to the provisions of this subpart MMM.
(7) Each piece of equipment to which this section applies shall be
identified such that it can be distinguished readily from equipment
that is not subject to this section. Identification of the equipment
does not require physical tagging of the equipment. For example, the
equipment may be identified on a plant site plan, in log entries, or by
designation of process boundaries by some form of weatherproof
identification. If changes are made to the affected source subject to
the leak detection requirements, equipment identification for each type
of component shall be updated, if needed, within 15 calendar days of
the end of each monitoring period for that component.
(8) Equipment that is in vacuum service is excluded from the
requirements of this section.
(9) Equipment that is in organic HAP service, but is in such
service less than 300 hours per calendar year, is excluded from the
requirements of this section if it is identified as required in
paragraph (g)(9) of this section.
(10) When each leak is detected by visual, audible, or olfactory
means, or by monitoring as described in Sec. 63.180(b) or (c) of
subpart H of this part, the following requirements apply:
(i) A weatherproof and readily visible identification, marked with
the equipment identification number, shall be attached to the leaking
equipment.
(ii) The identification on a valve or connector in light liquid or
gas/vapor service may be removed after it has been monitored as
specified in paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of this section and Sec. 63.174(e)
of subpart H of this part, and no leak has been detected during the
follow-up monitoring.
(iii) The identification on equipment, except on a valve or
connector in light liquid or gas/vapor service, may be removed after it
has been repaired.
(b) References. The owner or operator shall comply with the
provisions of subpart H of this part as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section. When the term ``process unit'' is used in
subpart H of this part, it shall mean any group of processes for the
purposes of this subpart. Groups of processes as used in this subpart
may be any individual process or combination of processes.
(1) Sections 63.160, 63.161, 63.162, 63.163, 63.167, 63.168,
63.170, 63.173, 63.175, 63.176, 63.181, and 63.182 of subpart H of this
part shall not apply for the purposes of this subpart MMM. The owner or
operator shall comply with the provisions specified in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(i) Sections 63.160 and 63.162 of subpart H of this part shall not
apply, instead the owner or operator shall comply with paragraph (a) of
this section;
(ii) Section 63.161 of subpart H of this part shall not apply,
instead the owner or operator shall comply with Sec. 63.1361;
(iii) Sections 63.163 and 63.173 of subpart H of this part shall
not apply,
[[Page 33602]]
instead the owner or operator shall comply with paragraph (c) of this
section;
(iv) Section 63.167 of subpart H of this part shall not apply,
instead the owner or operator shall comply with paragraph (d) of this
section;
(v) Section 63.168 of subpart H of this part shall not apply,
instead the owner or operator shall comply with paragraph (e) of this
section;
(vi) Section 63.170 of subpart H of this part shall not apply,
instead the owner or operator shall comply with Sec. 63.1362(b);
(vii) Section 63.181 of subpart H of this part shall not apply,
instead the owner or operator shall comply with paragraph (g) of this
section; and
(viii) Section 63.182 of subpart H of this part shall not apply,
instead the owner or operator shall comply with paragraph (h) of this
section.
(2) The owner or operator shall comply with Secs. 63.164, 63.165,
63.166, 63.169, 63.177, and 63.179 of subpart H of this part in their
entirety, except that when these sections reference other sections of
subpart H of this part, the owner or operator shall comply with the
revised sections as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (3) of this
section. Section 63.164 of subpart H of this part applies to
compressors. Section 63.165 of subpart H of this part applies to
pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service. Section 63.166 of subpart
H of this part applies to sampling connection systems. Section 63.169
of subpart H of this part applies to: pumps, valves, connectors, and
agitators in heavy liquid service; instrumentation systems; and
pressure relief devices in liquid service. Section 63.177 of subpart H
of this subpart applies to general alternative means of emission
limitation. Section 63.179 of subpart H of this part applies to
alternative means of emission limitation for enclosed-vented process
units.
(3) The owner or operator shall comply with Secs. 63.171, 63.172,
63.174, 63.178, and 63.180 of subpart H of this part with the
differences specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this
section.
(i) Section 63.171, Delay of repair, shall apply except
Sec. 63.171(a) shall not apply. Delay of repair of equipment for which
leaks have been detected is allowed if one of the following conditions
exist:
(A) The repair is technically infeasible without a process
shutdown. Repair of this equipment shall occur by the end of the next
scheduled process shutdown.
(B) The owner or operator determines that repair personnel would be
exposed to an immediate danger if attempting to repair without a
process shutdown. Repair of this equipment shall occur by the end of
the next scheduled process shutdown.
(ii) Section 63.172, Closed-vent systems and control devices, shall
apply for closed-vent systems used to comply with this section, and for
control devices used to comply with this section only, except:
(A) Section 63.172(k) and (l) shall not apply. The owner or
operator shall instead comply with paragraph (f) of this section.
(B) Owners or operators may, instead of complying with the
provisions of Sec. 63.172(f), design a closed-vent system to operate at
a pressure below atmospheric pressure. The system shall be equipped
with at least one pressure gauge or other pressure measurement device
that can be read from a readily accessible location to verify that
negative pressure is being maintained in the closed-vent system when
the associated control device is operating.
(iii) Section 63.174, Connectors, shall apply except:
(A) Section 63.174(f) and (g) shall not apply. Instead of
Sec. 63.174(f) and (g), the owner or operator shall comply with
paragraph (f) of this section.
(B) Days that the connectors are not in organic HAP service shall
not be considered part of the 3-month period in Sec. 63.174(e).
(C) Section 63.174(b)(3)(ii) of subpart H of this part shall not
apply. Instead, if the percent leaking connectors in the group of
process units was less than 0.5 percent, but equal to or greater than
0.25 percent, during the last required monitoring period, monitoring
shall be performed once every 4 years. An owner or operator may comply
with the requirements of this paragraph by monitoring at least 40
percent of the connectors in the first 2 years and the remainder of the
connectors within the next 2 years. The percent leaking connectors will
be calculated for the total of all monitoring performed during the 4-
year period.
(D) Section 63.174(b)(3)(iv) of subpart H of this part shall not
apply. Instead, the owner or operator shall increase the monitoring
frequency to once every 2 years for the next monitoring period if
leaking connectors comprise at least 0.5 percent but less than 1.0
percent of the connectors monitored within the 4 years specified in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(C) of this section, or the first 4 years
specified in Sec. 63.174(b)(3)(iii) of subpart H of this part. At the
end of that 2-year monitoring period, the owner or operator shall
monitor once per year while the percent leaking connectors is greater
than or equal to 0.5 percent; if the percent leaking connectors is less
than 0.5 percent, the owner or operator may return to monitoring once
every 4 years or may monitor in accordance with Sec. 63.174(b)(3)(iii)
of subpart H of this part, if appropriate.
(E) Section 63.174(b)(3)(v) of subpart H of this part shall not
apply. Instead, if an owner or operator complying with the requirements
of paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(C) and (D) of this section or
Sec. 63.174(b)(3)(iii) of subpart H of this part for a group of process
units determines that 1 percent or greater of the connectors are
leaking, the owner or operator shall increase the monitoring frequency
to one time per year. The owner or operator may again elect to use the
provisions of paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(C) or (D) of this section after a
monitoring period in which less than 0.5 percent of the connectors are
determined to be leaking.
(F) Section 63.174(b)(3)(iii) of subpart H of this part shall not
apply. Instead, monitoring shall be required once every 8 years, if the
percent leaking connectors in the group of process units was less than
0.25 percent during the last required monitoring period. An owner or
operator shall monitor at least 50 percent of the connectors in the
first 4 years and the remainder of the connectors within the next 4
years. If the percent leaking connectors in the first 4 years is equal
to or greater than 0.35 percent, the monitoring program shall revert at
that time to the appropriate monitoring frequency specified in
paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(C), (D), or (E) of this section.
(iv) Section 63.178 of subpart H of this part, Alternative means of
emission limitation: Batch processes, shall apply except that
Sec. 63.178(b) of subpart H of this part, requirements for pressure
testing, shall apply to all processes, not just batch processes;
(v) Section 63.180 of subpart H of this part, Test methods and
procedures, shall apply except Sec. 63.180(b)(4)(ii)(A) through (C) of
subpart H of this part shall not apply. Calibration gases shall be a
mixture of methane and air at a concentration of approximately, but
less than, 10,000 parts per million methane for agitators, 2,000 parts
per million for pumps, and 500 parts per million for all other
equipment, except as provided in Sec. 63.180(b)(4)(iii) of subpart H of
this part.
(c) standards for pumps in light liquid service and agitators in
gas/vapor service and in light liquid service. (1) The provisions of
this section apply to each pump that is in light liquid service, and to
each agitator in gas/vapor service or in light liquid service.
[[Page 33603]]
(2)(i) Monitoring. Each pump and agitator subject to this section
shall be monitored quarterly to detect leaks by the method specified in
Sec. 63.180(b) of subpart H of this part, except as provided in
Sec. 63.177 of subpart H of this part, paragraph (f) of this section,
and paragraphs (c)(5) through (c)(9) of this section.
(ii) Leak definition. The instrument reading, as determined by the
method as specified in Sec. 63.180(b) of subpart H of this part, that
defines a leak is:
(A) For agitators, an instrument reading of 10,000 parts per
million or greater.
(B) For pumps, an instrument reading of 2,000 parts per million or
greater.
(iii) Visual inspections. Each pump and agitator shall be checked
by visual inspection each calendar week for indications of liquids
dripping from the pump or agitator seal. If there are indications of
liquids dripping from the seal, a leak is detected.
(3) Repair provisions. (i) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days
after it is detected, except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this
section.
(ii) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5
calendar days after the leak is detected. First attempts at repair
include, but are not limited to, the following practices where
practicable:
(A) Tightening of packing gland nuts.
(B) Ensuring that the seal flush is operating at design pressure
and temperature.
(4) Calculation of percent leakers. (i) The owner or operator shall
decide no later than the end of the first monitoring period what groups
of processes will be developed. Once the owner or operator has decided,
all subsequent percent calculations shall be made on the same basis.
(ii) If, calculated on a 1 year rolling average, the greater of
either 10 percent or three of the pumps in a group of processes leak,
the owner or operator shall monitor each pump once per month.
(iii) The number of pumps in a group of processes shall be the sum
of all the pumps in organic HAP service, except that pumps found
leaking in a continuous process within 1 quarter after startup of the
pump shall not count in the percent leaking pumps calculation for that
one monitoring period only.
(iv) Percent leaking pumps shall be determined using Equation 3 of
this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.002
where:
%PL = percent leaking pumps
PL = number of pumps found leaking as determined through
quarterly monitoring as required in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
PT = total pumps in organic HAP service, including those
meeting the criteria in paragraphs (c)(5) and (6) of this section
PS = number of pumps in a continuous process leaking within
1 quarter of startup during the current monitoring period
(5) Exemptions. Each pump or agitator equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a barrier fluid system is exempt
from the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4)(iii) of this
section, provided the following requirements are met:
(i) Each dual mechanical seal system is:
(A) Operated with the barrier fluid at a pressure that is at all
times greater than the pump/agitator stuffing box pressure; or
(B) Equipped with a barrier fluid degassing reservoir that is
connected by a closed-vent system to a control device that complies
with the requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section; or
(C) Equipped with a closed-loop system that purges the barrier
fluid into a process stream.
(ii) The barrier fluid is not in light liquid service.
(iii) Each barrier fluid system is equipped with a sensor that will
detect failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both.
(iv) Each pump/agitator is checked by visual inspection each
calendar week for indications of liquids dripping from the pump/
agitator seal.
(A) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump/
agitator seal at the time of the weekly inspection, the pump/agitator
shall be monitored as specified in Sec. 63.180(b) of subpart H of this
part to determine if there is a leak of organic HAP in the barrier
fluid.
(B) If an instrument reading of 2,000 parts per million or greater
is measured for pumps, or 10,000 parts per million or greater is
measured for agitators, a leak is detected.
(v) Each sensor as described in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this
section is observed daily or is equipped with an alarm unless the pump
is located within the boundary of an unmanned plant site.
(vi)(A) The owner or operator determines, based on design
considerations and operating experience, criteria applicable to the
presence and frequency of drips and to the sensor that indicate failure
of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, or both.
(B) If indications of liquids dripping from the pump/agitator seal
exceed the criteria established in paragraph (c)(5)(vi)(A) of this
section, or if, based on the criteria established in paragraph
(c)(5)(vi)(A) of this section, the sensor indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both, a leak is detected.
(C) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is detected,
except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section.
(D) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5
calendar days after each leak is detected.
(6) Any pump/agitator that is designed with no externally actuated
shaft penetrating the pump/agitator housing is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section, except
for the requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section and, for
pumps, paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of this section.
(7) Any pump/agitator equipped with a closed-vent system capable of
capturing and transporting any leakage from the seal or seals back to
the process or to a control device that complies with the requirements
of paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section is exempt from the requirements
of paragraphs (c)(2) through (5) of this section.
(8) Any pump/agitator that is located within the boundary of an
unmanned plant site is exempt from the weekly visual inspection
requirement of paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (c)(5)(iv) of this section,
and the daily requirements of paragraph (c)(5)(v) of this section,
provided that each pump/agitator is visually inspected as often as
practicable and at least monthly.
(9) If more than 90 percent of the pumps in a group of processes
meet the criteria in either paragraph (c)(5) or (6) of this section,
the process is exempt
[[Page 33604]]
from the requirements of paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(d) Standards: open-ended valves or lines. (1)(i) Each open-ended
valve or line shall be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a
second valve, except as provided in Sec. 63.177 of subpart H of this
part and paragraphs (d)(4) through (6) of this section.
(ii) The cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve shall seal the
open end at all times except during operations requiring process fluid
flow through the open-ended valve or line, or during maintenance or
repair. The cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve shall be in place
within 1 hour of cessation of operations requiring process fluid flow
through the open-ended valve or line, or within 1 hour of cessation of
maintenance or repair.
(2) Each open-ended valve or line equipped with a second valve
shall be operated in a manner such that the valve on the process fluid
end is closed before the second valve is closed.
(3) When a double block and bleed system is being used, the bleed
valve or line may remain open during operations that require venting
the line between the block valves but shall comply with paragraph
(d)(1) of this section at all other times.
(4) Open-ended valves or lines in an emergency shutdown system
which are designed to open automatically in the event of a process
upset are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3)
of this section.
(5) Open-ended valves or lines containing materials which would
autocatalytically polymerize are exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(6) Open-ended valves or lines containing materials which could
cause an explosion, serious overpressure, or other safety hazard if
capped or equipped with a double block and bleed system as specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section are exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(e) Standards: valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid
service. (1) The provisions of this section apply to valves that are
either in gas/vapor service or in light liquid service.
(2) For existing and new affected sources, all valves subject to
this section shall be monitored, except as provided in paragraph (f) of
this section and in Sec. 63.177 of subpart H of this part, by no later
than 1 year after the compliance date.
(3) Monitoring. The owner or operator of a source subject to this
section shall monitor all valves, except as provided in paragraph (f)
of this section and in Sec. 63.177 of subpart H of this part, at the
intervals specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section and shall
comply with all other provisions of this section, except as provided in
paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section and Secs. 63.178 and 63.179 of
subpart H of this part.
(i) The valves shall be monitored to detect leaks by the method
specified in Sec. 63.180(b) of subpart H of this part.
(ii) An instrument reading of 500 parts per million or greater
defines a leak.
(4) Subsequent monitoring frequencies. After conducting the initial
survey required in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the owner or
operator shall monitor valves for leaks at the intervals specified
below:
(i) For a group of processes with 2 percent or greater leaking
valves, calculated according to paragraph (e)(6) of this section, the
owner or operator shall monitor each valve once per month, except as
specified in paragraph (e)(9) of this section.
(ii) For a group of processes with less than 2 percent leaking
valves, the owner or operator shall monitor each valve once each
quarter, except as provided in paragraphs (e)(4)(iii) through (v) of
this section.
(iii) For a group of processes with less than 1 percent leaking
valves, the owner or operator may elect to monitor each valve once
every 2 quarters.
(iv) For a group of processes with less than 0.5 percent leaking
valves, the owner or operator may elect to monitor each valve once
every 4 quarters.
(v) For a group of processes with less than 0.25 percent leaking
valves, the owner or operator may elect to monitor each valve once
every 2 years.
(5) Calculation of percent leakers. For a group of processes to
which this subpart applies, the owner or operator may choose to
subdivide the valves in the applicable group of processes and apply the
provisions of paragraph (e)(4) of this section to each subgroup. If the
owner or operator elects to subdivide the valves in the applicable
group of processes, then the provisions of paragraphs (e)(5)(i) through
(viii) of this section apply.
(i) The overall performance of total valves in the applicable group
of processes must be less than 2 percent leaking valves, as detected
according to paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section and as
calculated according to paragraphs (e)(6)(ii) and (iii) of this
section.
(ii) The initial assignment or subsequent reassignment of valves to
subgroups shall be governed by the provisions of paragraphs (e)(5)(ii)
(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) The owner or operator shall determine which valves are assigned
to each subgroup. Valves with less than 1 year of monitoring data or
valves not monitored within the last 12 months must be placed initially
into the most frequently monitored subgroup until at least 1 year of
monitoring data have been obtained.
(B) Any valve or group of valves can be reassigned from a less
frequently monitored subgroup to a more frequently monitored subgroup
provided that the valves to be reassigned were monitored during the
most recent monitoring period for the less frequently monitored
subgroup. The monitoring results must be included with the less
frequently monitored subgroup's monitoring event and associated next
percent leaking valves calculation for that group.
(C) Any valve or group of valves can be reassigned from a more
frequently monitored subgroup to a less frequently monitored subgroup
provided that the valves to be reassigned have not leaked for the
period of the less frequently monitored subgroup (e.g., for the last 12
months, if the valve or group of valves is to be reassigned to a
subgroup being monitored annually). Nonrepairable valves may not be
reassigned to a less frequently monitored subgroup.
(iii) The owner or operator shall determine every 6 months if the
overall performance of total valves in the applicable group of
processes is less than 2 percent leaking valves and so indicate the
performance in the next Periodic report. If the overall performance of
total valves in the applicable group of processes is 2 percent leaking
valves or greater, the owner or operator shall revert to the program
required in paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this section. The overall
performance of total valves in the applicable group of processes shall
be calculated as a weighted average of the percent leaking valves of
each subgroup according to Equation 4 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.003
where:
%VLO = overall performance of total valves in the applicable
group of processes
%VLi = percent leaking valves in subgroup i, most recent
value calculated according to the procedures in paragraphs (e)(6)(ii)
and (iii) of this section
Vi = number of valves in subgroup i
[[Page 33605]]
n = number of subgroups
(iv) Records. In addition to records required by paragraph (g) of
this section, the owner or operator shall maintain records specified in
paragraphs (e)(5)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Which valves are assigned to each subgroup,
(B) Monitoring results and calculations made for each subgroup for
each monitoring period,
(C) Which valves are reassigned and when they were reassigned, and
(D) The results of the semiannual overall performance calculation
required in paragraph (e)(5)(iii) of this section.
(v) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator no later
than 30 days prior to the beginning of the next monitoring period of
the decision to subgroup valves. The notification shall identify the
participating processes and the valves assigned to each subgroup.
(vi) Semiannual reports. In addition to the information required by
paragraph (h)(3) of this section, the owner or operator shall submit in
the Periodic reports the information specified in paragraphs
(e)(5)(vi)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) Valve reassignments occurring during the reporting period, and
(B) Results of the semiannual overall performance calculation
required by paragraph (e)(5)(iii) of this section.
(vii) To determine the monitoring frequency for each subgroup, the
calculation procedures of paragraph (e)(6)(iii) of this section shall
be used.
(viii) Except for the overall performance calculations required by
paragraphs (e)(5)(i) and (iii) of this section, each subgroup shall be
treated as if it were a process for the purposes of applying the
provisions of this section.
(6)(i) The owner or operator shall decide no later than the
implementation date of this subpart or upon revision of an operating
permit how to group the processes. Once the owner or operator has
decided, all subsequent percentage calculations shall be made on the
same basis.
(ii) Percent leaking valves for each group of processes or subgroup
shall be determined using Equation 5 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.004
Where:
%VL = percent leaking valves
VL = number of valves found leaking excluding nonrepairables
as provided in paragraph (e)(6)(iv)(A) of this section
VT = total valves monitored, in a monitoring period
excluding valves monitored as required by paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of this
section
(iii) When determining monitoring frequency for each group of
processes or subgroup subject to monthly, quarterly, or semiannual
monitoring frequencies, the percent leaking valves shall be the
arithmetic average of the percent leaking valves from the last two
monitoring periods. When determining monitoring frequency for each
group of processes or subgroup subject to annual or biennial (once
every 2 years) monitoring frequencies, the percent leaking valves shall
be the arithmetic average of the percent leaking valves from the last
three monitoring periods.
(iv)(A) Nonrepairable valves shall be included in the calculation
of percent leaking valves the first time the valve is identified as
leaking and nonrepairable and as required to comply with paragraph
(e)(6)(iv)(B) of this section. Otherwise, a number of nonrepairable
valves (identified and included in the percent leaking calculation in a
previous period) up to a maximum of 1 percent of the total number of
valves in organic HAP service at a process may be excluded from
calculation of percent leaking valves for subsequent monitoring
periods.
(B) If the number of nonrepairable valves exceeds 1 percent of the
total number of valves in organic HAP service at a process, the number
of nonrepairable valves exceeding 1 percent of the total number of
valves in organic HAP service shall be included in the calculation of
percent leaking valves.
(7) Repair provisions. (i) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but no later than 15 calendar days
after the leak is detected, except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(i)
of this section.
(ii) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5
calendar days after each leak is detected.
(iii) When a leak is repaired, the valve shall be monitored at
least once within the first 3 months after its repair. Days that the
valve is not in organic HAP service shall not be considered part of
this 3-month period.
(8) First attempts at repair include, but are not limited to, the
following practices where practicable:
(i) Tightening of bonnet bolts,
(ii) Replacement of bonnet bolts,
(iii) Tightening of packing gland nuts, and
(iv) Injection of lubricant into lubricated packing.
(9) Any equipment located at a plant site with fewer than 250
valves in organic HAP service in the affected source is exempt from the
requirements for monthly monitoring specified in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of
this section. Instead, the owner or operator shall monitor each valve
in organic HAP service for leaks once each quarter, or comply with
paragraphs (e)(4)(iii) or (iv) of this section.
(f) Unsafe to monitor, difficult to monitor, and inaccessible
equipment. (1) Equipment that is designated as unsafe to monitor,
difficult to monitor, or inaccessible is exempt from the requirements
as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) (i) through (iv) of this section
provided the owner or operator meets the requirements specified in
paragraph (f) (2), (3), or (4) of this section, as applicable. Ceramic
or ceramic-lined connectors are subject to the same requirements as
inaccessible connectors.
(i) For pumps and agitators, paragraphs (c) (2), (3), and (4) of
this section do not apply.
(ii) For valves, paragraphs (e)(2) through (7) of this section do
not apply.
(iii) For closed-vent systems, Sec. 63.172(f)(1), (f)(2), and (g)
of subpart H of this part do not apply.
(iv) For connectors, Sec. 63.174(b) through (e) of subpart H of
this part do not apply.
(2) Equipment that is unsafe to monitor. (i) Equipment may be
designated as unsafe to monitor if the owner or operator determines
that monitoring personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger as a
consequence of complying with the monitoring requirements identified in
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(ii) The owner or operator of equipment that is designated as
unsafe-to-monitor must have a written plan that requires monitoring of
the equipment as frequently as practicable during safe-to-monitor
times, but not more frequently than the periodic monitoring schedule
otherwise applicable.
(3) Equipment that is difficult to monitor. (i) Equipment may be
designated as difficult to monitor if the owner or operator determines
that the equipment cannot be monitored without elevating the monitoring
personnel more than 2 meters above a support surface or the equipment
is not accessible at anytime in a safe manner;
(ii) At an existing source, any equipment within a group of
processes that meets the criteria of paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this
section may be designated as difficult to monitor. At a new affected
source, an owner or operator may designate no more than 3 percent of
each type of equipment as difficult to monitor.
[[Page 33606]]
(iii) The owner or operator of equipment designated as difficult to
monitor must follow a written plan that requires monitoring of the
equipment at least once per calendar year.
(4) Inaccessible equipment and ceramic or ceramic-lined connectors.
(i) A connector, agitator, or valve may be designated as inaccessible
if it is:
(A) Buried;
(B) Insulated in a manner that prevents access to the equipment by
a monitor probe;
(C) Obstructed by equipment or piping that prevents access to the
equipment by a monitor probe;
(D) Unable to be reached from a wheeled scissor-lift or hydraulic-
type scaffold which would allow access to equipment up to 7.6 meters
above the ground; or
(E) Not able to be accessed at any time in a safe manner to perform
monitoring. Unsafe access includes, but is not limited to, the use of a
wheeled scissor-lift on unstable or uneven terrain, the use of a
motorized man-lift basket in areas where an ignition potential exists,
or access would require near proximity to hazards such as electrical
lines, or would risk damage to equipment.
(ii) At an existing source, any connector, agitator, or valve that
meets the criteria of paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section may be
designated as inaccessible. At a new affected source, an owner or
operator may designate no more than 3 percent of each type of equipment
as inaccessible.
(iii) If any inaccessible equipment or ceramic or ceramic-lined
connector is observed by visual, audible, olfactory, or other means to
be leaking, the leak shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but no
later than 15 calendar days after the leak is detected, except as
provided in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section.
(g) Recordkeeping requirements. (1) An owner or operator of more
than one group of processes subject to the provisions of this section
may comply with the recordkeeping requirements for the groups of
processes in one recordkeeping system if the system identifies with
each record the program being implemented (e.g., quarterly monitoring)
for each type of equipment. All records and information required by
this section shall be maintained in a manner that can be readily
accessed at the plant site. This could include physically locating the
records at the plant site or accessing the records from a central
location by computer at the plant site.
(2) General recordkeeping. Except as provided in paragraph (g)(5)
of this section, the following information pertaining to all equipment
subject to the requirements in this section shall be recorded:
(i)(A) A list of identification numbers for equipment (except
instrumentation systems) subject to the requirements of this section.
Connectors, except those subject to paragraph (f) of this section, need
not be individually identified if all connectors in a designated area
or length of pipe subject to the provisions of this section are
identified as a group, and the number of subject connectors is
indicated. The list for each type of equipment shall be completed no
later than the completion of the initial survey required for that
component. The list of identification numbers shall be updated, if
needed, to incorporate equipment changes within 15 calendar days of the
completion of each monitoring survey for the type of equipment
component monitored.
(B) A schedule for monitoring connectors subject to the provisions
of Sec. 63.174(a) of subpart H of this part and valves subject to the
provisions of paragraph (e)(4) of this section.
(C) Physical tagging of the equipment is not required to indicate
that it is in organic HAP service. Equipment subject to the provisions
of this section may be identified on a plant site plan, in log entries,
or by other appropriate methods.
(ii)(A) A list of identification numbers for equipment that the
owner or operator elects to equip with a closed-vent system and control
device, under the provisions of paragraph (c)(7) of this section or
Secs. 63.164(h) or 63.165(c) of subpart H of this part.
(B) A list of identification numbers for compressors that the owner
or operator elects to designate as operating with an instrument reading
of less than 500 parts per million above background, under the
provisions of Sec. 63.164(i) of subpart H of this part.
(iii)(A) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief
devices subject to the provisions in Sec. 63.165(a) of subpart H of
this part.
(B) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
equipped with rupture disks, under the provisions of Sec. 63.165(d) of
subpart H of this part.
(iv) Identification of instrumentation systems subject to the
provisions of this section. Individual components in an instrumentation
system need not be identified.
(v) The following information shall be recorded for each dual
mechanical seal system:
(A) Design criteria required by paragraph (c)(5)(vi)(A) of this
section and Sec. 63.164(e)(2) of subpart H of this part, and an
explanation of the design criteria; and
(B) Any changes to these criteria and the reasons for the changes.
(vi) A list of equipment designated as unsafe to monitor, difficult
to monitor, or inaccessible under paragraphs (f) or (b)(3)(i)(B) of
this section and a copy of the plan for monitoring or inspecting this
equipment.
(vii) A list of connectors removed from and added to the process,
as described in Sec. 63.174(i)(1) of subpart H of this part, and
documentation of the integrity of the weld for any removed connectors,
as required in Sec. 63.174(j) of subpart H of this part. This is not
required unless the net credits for removed connectors is expected to
be used.
(viii) For batch processes that the owner or operator elects to
monitor as provided under Sec. 63.178(c) of subpart H of this part, a
list of equipment added to batch product processes since the last
monitoring period required in Sec. 63.178(c)(3)(ii) and (iii) of
subpart H of this part. This list must be completed for each type of
equipment within 15 calendar days of the completion of the each
monitoring survey for the type of equipment monitored.
(3) Records of visual inspections. For visual inspections of
equipment subject to the provisions of paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and
(c)(5)(iv) of this section, the owner or operator shall document that
the inspection was conducted and the date of the inspection. The owner
or operator shall maintain records as specified in paragraph (g)(4) of
this section for leaking equipment identified in this inspection,
except as provided in paragraph (g)(5) of this section. These records
shall be retained for 5 years.
(4) Monitoring records. When each leak is detected as specified in
paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section and Secs. 63.164, 63.169,
63.172, and 63.174 of subpart H of this part, the owner or operator
shall record the information specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) through
(ix) of this section. All records shall be retained for 5 years, in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.10(b)(1) of subpart A of
this part.
(i) The instrument and the equipment identification number and the
operator name, initials, or identification number.
(ii) The date the leak was detected and the date of first attempt
to repair the leak.
(iii) The date of successful repair of the leak.
(iv) If postrepair monitoring is required, maximum instrument
reading measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, after it
is successfully repaired or determined to be nonrepairable.
[[Page 33607]]
(v) ``Repair delayed'' and the reason for the delay if a leak is
not repaired within 15 calendar days after discovery of the leak.
(A) The owner or operator may develop a written procedure that
identifies the conditions that justify a delay of repair. The written
procedures may be included as part of the startup/shutdown/malfunction
plan, required by Sec. 63.1367(a), for the source or may be part of a
separate document that is maintained at the plant site. Reasons for
delay of repair may be documented by citing the relevant sections of
the written procedure.
(B) If delay of repair was caused by depletion of stocked parts,
there must be documentation that the spare parts were sufficiently
stocked onsite before depletion and the reason for depletion.
(vi) If repairs were delayed, dates of process shutdowns that occur
while the equipment is unrepaired.
(vii)(A) If the alternative in Sec. 63.174(c)(1)(ii) of subpart H
of this part is not in use for the monitoring period, identification,
either by list, location (area or grouping), or tagging of connectors
disturbed since the last monitoring period required in Sec. 63.174(b)
of subpart H of this part, as described in Sec. 63.174(c)(1) of subpart
H of this part.
(B) The date and results of follow-up monitoring as required in
Sec. 63.174(c) of subpart H of this part. If identification of
disturbed connectors is made by location, then all connectors within
the designated location shall be monitored.
(viii) The date and results of the monitoring required in
Sec. 63.178(c)(3)(i) of subpart H of this part for equipment added to a
batch process since the last monitoring period required in
Sec. 63.178(c)(3)(ii) and (iii) of subpart H of this part. If no
leaking equipment is found in this monitoring, the owner or operator
shall record that the inspection was performed. Records of the actual
monitoring results are not required.
(ix) Copies of the periodic reports as specified in paragraph
(h)(3) of this section, if records are not maintained on a computerized
data base capable of generating summary reports from the records.
(5) Records of pressure tests. The owner or operator who elects to
pressure test a process equipment train and supply lines between
storage and processing areas to demonstrate compliance with this
section is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (g)(2), (3), (4),
and (6) of this section. Instead, the owner or operator shall maintain
records of the following information:
(i) The identification of each product, or product code, produced
during the calendar year. It is not necessary to identify individual
items of equipment in the process equipment train.
(ii) Records demonstrating the proportion of the time during the
calendar year the equipment is in use in the process that is subject to
the provisions of this subpart. Examples of suitable documentation are
records of time in use for individual pieces of equipment or average
time in use for the process unit. These records are not required if the
owner or operator does not adjust monitoring frequency by the time in
use, as provided in Sec. 63.178(c)(3)(iii) of subpart H of this part.
(iii) Physical tagging of the equipment to identify that it is in
organic HAP service and subject to the provisions of this section is
not required. Equipment in a process subject to the provisions of this
section may be identified on a plant site plan, in log entries, or by
other appropriate methods.
(iv) The dates of each pressure test required in Sec. 63.178(b) of
subpart H of this part, the test pressure, and the pressure drop
observed during the test.
(v) Records of any visible, audible, or olfactory evidence of fluid
loss.
(vi) When a process equipment train does not pass two consecutive
pressure tests, the following information shall be recorded in a log
and kept for 2 years:
(A) The date of each pressure test and the date of each leak repair
attempt.
(B) Repair methods applied in each attempt to repair the leak.
(C) The reason for the delay of repair.
(D) The expected date for delivery of the replacement equipment and
the actual date of delivery of the replacement equipment.
(E) The date of successful repair.
(6) Records of compressor and pressure relief valve compliance
tests. The dates and results of each compliance test required for
compressors subject to the provisions in Sec. 63.164(i) of subpart H of
this part and the dates and results of the monitoring following a
pressure release for each pressure relief device subject to the
provisions in Sec. 63.165(a) and (b) of subpart H of this part. The
results shall include:
(i) The background level measured during each compliance test.
(ii) The maximum instrument reading measured at each piece of
equipment during each compliance test.
(7) Records for closed-vent systems. The owner or operator shall
maintain records of the information specified in paragraphs (g)(7)(i)
through (iii) of this section for closed-vent systems and control
devices subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this
section. The records specified in paragraph (g)(7)(i) of this section
shall be retained for the life of the equipment. The records specified
in paragraphs (g)(7)(ii) and (iii) of this section shall be retained
for 5 years.
(i) The design specifications and performance demonstrations
specified in paragraphs (g)(7)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Detailed schematics, design specifications of the control
device, and piping and instrumentation diagrams.
(B) The dates and descriptions of any changes in the design
specifications.
(C) The flare design (i.e., steam assisted, air assisted, or
nonassisted) and the results of the compliance demonstration required
by Sec. 63.11(b) of subpart A of this part.
(D) A description of the parameter or parameters monitored, as
required in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, to ensure that
control devices are operated and maintained in conformance with their
design and an explanation of why that parameter (or parameters) was
selected for the monitoring.
(ii) Records of operation of closed-vent systems and control
devices.
(A) Dates and durations when the closed-vent systems and control
devices required in paragraph (c) of this section and Secs. 63.164
through 63.166 of subpart H of this part are not operated as designed
as indicated by the monitored parameters, including periods when a
flare pilot light system does not have a flame.
(B) Dates and durations during which the monitoring system or
monitoring device is inoperative.
(C) Dates and durations of startups and shutdowns of control
devices required in paragraph (c) of this section and Secs. 63.164
through 63.166 of subpart H of this part.
(iii) Records of inspections of closed-vent systems subject to the
provisions of Sec. 63.172 of subpart H of this part.
(A) For each inspection conducted in accordance with the provisions
of Sec. 63.172(f)(1) or (2) of subpart H of this part during which no
leaks were detected, a record that the inspection was performed, the
date of the inspection, and a statement that no leaks were detected.
(B) For each inspection conducted in accordance with the provisions
of Sec. 63.172(f)(1) or (f)(2) of subpart H of this part during which
leaks were detected, the information specified in paragraph (g)(4) of
this section shall be recorded.
(8) Records for components in heavy liquid service. Information,
data, and
[[Page 33608]]
analysis used to determine that a piece of equipment or process is in
heavy liquid service shall be recorded. Such a determination shall
include an analysis or demonstration that the process fluids do not
meet the criteria of ``in light liquid or gas/vapor service.'' Examples
of information that could document this include, but are not limited
to, records of chemicals purchased for the process, analyses of process
stream composition, engineering calculations, or process knowledge.
(9) Records of exempt components. Identification, either by list,
location (area or group), or other method of equipment in organic HAP
service less than 300 hr/yr subject to the provisions of this section.
(10) Records of alternative means of compliance determination.
Owners and operators choosing to comply with the requirements of
Sec. 63.179 of subpart H of this part shall maintain the following
records:
(i) Identification of the process(es) and the organic HAP they
handle.
(ii) A schematic of the process, enclosure, and closed-vent system.
(iii) A description of the system used to create a negative
pressure in the enclosure to ensure that all emissions are routed to
the control device.
(h) Reporting Requirements. (1) Each owner or operator of a source
subject to this section shall submit the reports listed in paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) A Notification of Compliance Status report described in
paragraph (h)(2) of this section, and
(ii) Periodic reports described in paragraph (h)(3) of this
section.
(2) Notification of compliance status report. Each owner or
operator of a source subject to this section shall submit the
information specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section in the Notification of Compliance Status report described in
Sec. 63.1368(f). Section 63.9(j) of subpart A of this part shall not
apply to the Notification of Compliance Status report.
(i) The notification shall provide the information listed in
paragraphs (h)(2)(i)(A) through (C) of this section for each group of
processes subject to the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (g) of
this section.
(A) Identification of the group of processes.
(B) Approximate number of each equipment type (e.g., valves, pumps)
in organic HAP service, excluding equipment in vacuum service.
(C) Method of compliance with the standard (for example, ``monthly
leak detection and repair'' or ``equipped with dual mechanical
seals'').
(ii) The notification shall provide the information listed in
paragraphs (h)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section for each process
subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section and
Sec. 63.178(b) of subpart H of this part.
(A) Products or product codes subject to the provisions of this
section, and
(B) Planned schedule for pressure testing when equipment is
configured for production of products subject to the provisions of this
section.
(iii) The notification shall provide the information listed in
paragraphs (h)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section for each process
subject to the requirements in Sec. 63.179 of subpart H of this part.
(A) Process identification.
(B) A description of the system used to create a negative pressure
in the enclosure and the control device used to comply with the
requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
(3) Periodic reports. The owner or operator of a source subject to
this section shall submit Periodic reports.
(i) A report containing the information in paragraphs (h)(3)(ii),
(iii), and (iv) of this section shall be submitted semiannually. The
first Periodic report shall be submitted no later than 240 days after
the date the Notification of Compliance Status report is due and shall
cover the 6-month period beginning on the date the Notification of
Compliance Status report is due. Each subsequent Periodic report shall
cover the 6-month period following the preceding period.
(ii) For equipment complying with the provisions of paragraphs (b)
through (g) of this section, the Periodic report shall contain the
summary information listed in paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) through (L) of
this section for each monitoring period during the 6-month period.
(A) The number of valves for which leaks were detected as described
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the percent leakers, and the total
number of valves monitored;
(B) The number of valves for which leaks were not repaired as
required in paragraph (e)(7) of this section, identifying the number of
those that are determined nonrepairable;
(C) The number of pumps and agitators for which leaks were detected
as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the percent leakers,
and the total number of pumps and agitators monitored;
(D) The number of pumps and agitators for which leaks were not
repaired as required in paragraph (c)(3) of this section;
(E) The number of compressors for which leaks were detected as
described in Sec. 63.164(f) of subpart H of this part;
(F) The number of compressors for which leaks were not repaired as
required in Sec. 63.164(g) of subpart H of this part;
(G) The number of connectors for which leaks were detected as
described in Sec. 63.174(a) of subpart H of this part, the percent of
connectors leaking, and the total number of connectors monitored;
(H) The number of connectors for which leaks were not repaired as
required in Sec. 63.174(d) of subpart H of this part, identifying the
number of those that are determined nonrepairable;
(I) The facts that explain any delay of repairs and, where
appropriate, why a process shutdown was technically infeasible.
(J) The results of all monitoring to show compliance with
Secs. 63.164(i), 63.165(a), and 63.172(f) of subpart H of this part
conducted within the semiannual reporting period.
(K) If applicable, the initiation of a monthly monitoring program
under either paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or paragraph (e)(4)(i)(A) of this
section.
(L) If applicable, notification of a change in connector monitoring
alternatives as described in Sec. 63.174(c)(1) of subpart H of this
part.
(iii) For owners or operators electing to meet the requirements of
Sec. 63.178(b) of subpart H of this part, the Periodic report shall
include the information listed in paragraphs (h)(3)(iii) (A) through
(E) of this section for each process.
(A) Product process equipment train identification;
(B) The number of pressure tests conducted;
(C) The number of pressure tests where the equipment train failed
either the retest or two consecutive pressure tests;
(D) The facts that explain any delay of repairs; and
(E) The results of all monitoring to determine compliance with
Sec. 63.172(f) of subpart H of this part.
(iv) Any change in the information submitted under paragraph (h)(2)
of this section shall be provided in the next Periodic report.
Sec. 63.1364 Compliance dates.
(a) Compliance dates for existing sources. (1) An owner or operator
of an existing affected source must comply with the provisions of this
subpart within 3 years after June 23, 1999.
(2) Pursuant to section 112(i)(3)(B) of the CAA, an owner or
operator of an existing source may request an
[[Page 33609]]
extension of up to 1 additional year to comply with the provisions of
this subpart if the additional time is needed for the installation of
controls.
(i) For purposes of this subpart, a request for an extension shall
be submitted no later than 120 days prior to the compliance date
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except as provided in
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section. The dates specified in
Sec. 63.6(i) of subpart A of this part for submittal of requests for
extensions shall not apply to sources subject to this subpart.
(ii) An owner or operator may submit a compliance extension request
after the date specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section
provided the need for the compliance extension arose after that date
and before the otherwise applicable compliance date, and the need arose
due to circumstances beyond reasonable control of the owner or
operator. This request shall include the data described in
Sec. 63.6(i)(8)(A), (B), and (D) of subpart A of this part.
(b) Compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources. An owner or
operator of a new or reconstructed affected source must comply with the
provisions of this subpart on June 23, 1999 or upon startup, whichever
is later.
Sec. 63.1365 Test methods and initial compliance procedures.
(a) General. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this
section, the procedures specified in paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and
(g) of this section are required to demonstrate initial compliance with
Sec. 63.1362(b), (c), (d), (f), and (g), respectively. The provisions
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section apply to design evaluations that
are used to demonstrate compliance with the standards for process vents
and storage vessels. The provisions in paragraph (a)(2) of this section
apply to performance tests that are specified in paragraphs (c), (d),
and (e) of this section. The provisions in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section describe initial compliance procedures for flares. The
provisions in paragraph (a)(5) of this section are used to demonstrate
initial compliance with the alternative standards specified in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(6) and (c)(4). The provisions in paragraph (a)(6) of
this section are used to comply with the outlet concentration
requirements specified in Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iv)(A), (b)(3)(ii),
(b)(4)(ii)(A), (b)(5)(ii), and (b)(5)(iii).
(1) Design evaluation. To demonstrate that a control device meets
the required control efficiency, a design evaluation must address the
composition and HAP concentration of the vent stream entering the
control device. A design evaluation also must address other vent stream
characteristics and control device operating parameters as specified in
any one of paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section,
depending on the type of control device that is used. If the vent
stream is not the only inlet to the control device, the efficiency
demonstration also must consider all other vapors, gases, and liquids,
other than fuels, received by the control device.
(i) For an enclosed combustion device used to comply with the
provisions of Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iv), (b)(4)(ii), (c)(2)(iv)(B), or
(c)(3) with a minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds and a minimum
temperature of 760 deg.C, the design evaluation must document that
these conditions exist.
(ii) For a combustion control device that does not satisfy the
criteria in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the design evaluation
must document control efficiency and address the following
characteristics, depending on the type of control device:
(A) For a thermal vapor incinerator, the design evaluation must
consider the autoignition temperature of the organic HAP, must consider
the vent stream flow rate, and must establish the design minimum and
average temperature in the combustion zone and the combustion zone
residence time.
(B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, the design evaluation must
consider the vent stream flow rate and must establish the design
minimum and average temperatures across the catalyst bed inlet and
outlet.
(C) For a boiler or process heater, the design evaluation must
consider the vent stream flow rate, must establish the design minimum
and average flame zone temperatures and combustion zone residence time,
and must describe the method and location where the vent stream is
introduced into the flame zone.
(iii) For a condenser, the design evaluation must consider the vent
stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature, and must
establish the design outlet organic HAP compound concentration level,
design average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream, and
the design average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser
inlet and outlet. The temperature of the gas stream exiting the
condenser must be measured and used to establish the outlet organic HAP
concentration.
(iv) For a carbon adsorption system that regenerates the carbon bed
directly onsite in the control device such as a fixed-bed adsorber, the
design evaluation must consider the vent stream flow rate, relative
humidity, and temperature, and must establish the design exhaust vent
stream organic compound concentration level, adsorption cycle time,
number of carbon beds and their capacities, type and working capacity
of activated carbon used for the carbon beds, design total regeneration
stream mass or volumetric flow over the period of each complete carbon
bed regeneration cycle, design carbon bed temperature after
regeneration, design carbon bed regeneration time, and design service
life of carbon. For vacuum desorption, the pressure drop must be
included.
(v) For a carbon adsorption system that does not regenerate the
carbon bed directly onsite in the control device such as a carbon
canister, the design evaluation must consider the vent stream mass or
volumetric flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature, and must
establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration
level, capacity of the carbon bed, type and working capacity of
activated carbon used for the carbon bed, and design carbon replacement
interval based on the total carbon working capacity of the control
device and source operating schedule.
(vi) For a scrubber, the design evaluation must consider the vent
stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-vapor ratio,
scrubbing liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, and the
reaction kinetics of the constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The
design evaluation must establish the design exhaust vent stream organic
compound concentration level and must include the additional
information in paragraphs (a)(1)(vi)(A) and (B) of this section for
trays and a packed column scrubber.
(A) Type and total number of theoretical and actual trays;
(B) Type and total surface area of packing for entire column, and
for individual packed sections if column contains more than one packed
section.
(vii) For fabric filters, the design evaluation must include the
pressure drop through the device and the net gas-to-cloth ratio (i.e.,
cubic feet of gas per square feet of cloth).
(2) Calculation of TOC or total organic HAP concentration. The TOC
concentration or total organic HAP concentration is the sum of the
concentrations of the individual components. If compliance is being
determined based on TOC, the owner or operator shall compute TOC for
each run using Equation 6 of this subpart. If compliance with the
percent reduction format of the standard is being
[[Page 33610]]
determined based on total organic HAP, the owner or operator shall
compute total organic HAP using Equation 6 of this subpart, except that
only organic HAP compounds shall be summed; when determining compliance
with the wastewater provisions of Sec. 63.1363(d), the organic HAP
compounds shall consist of the organic HAP compounds in Table 9 of
subpart G of this part.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.005
Where:
CGT = total concentration of TOC in vented gas stream,
average of samples, dry basis, ppmv
CGSi,j = concentration of sample components in vented gas
stream for sample j, dry basis, ppmv
n = number of compounds in the sample
m = number of samples in the sample run
(3) Initial compliance using flares. When a flare is used to comply
with the standards, the owner or operator shall comply with the
provisions in Sec. 63.11(b) of subpart A of this part.
(i) The initial compliance determination shall consist of a visible
emissions determination using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
as described in Sec. 63.11(b)(4) of subpart A of this part, and a
determination of net heating value of gas being combusted and exit
velocity to comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b)(6) through
(8) of subpart A of this part. The net heating value and exit velocity
shall be based on the results of performance testing under the
conditions described in paragraphs (b)(10) and (11) of this section.
(ii) An owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance
test to determine percent emission reduction or outlet organic HAP or
TOC concentration when a flare is used.
(4) Exemptions from compliance demonstrations. An owner or operator
using any control device specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (ii)
of this section is exempt from the initial compliance provisions in
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section.
(i) A boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of
44 megawatts or greater.
(ii) A boiler or process heater into which the emission stream is
introduced with the primary fuel.
(5) Initial compliance with alternative standard. Initial
compliance with the alternative standards in Sec. 63.1362(b)(6) and
(c)(4) is demonstrated when the outlet TOC concentration is 20 ppmv or
less, and the outlet HCl and chlorine concentration is 20 ppmv or less.
To demonstrate initial compliance, the owner or operator shall be in
compliance with the monitoring provisions in Sec. 63.1366(b)(5) on the
initial compliance date. The owner or operator shall use Method 18 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A to determine the predominant organic HAP in
the emission stream if the TOC monitor is calibrated on the predominant
HAP.
(6) Initial compliance with the 20 ppmv outlet limit. Initial
compliance with the 20 ppmv TOC and HCl and chlorine concentration is
demonstrated when the outlet TOC concentration is 20 ppmv or less, and
the outlet HCl and chlorine concentration is 20 ppmv or less. To
demonstrate initial compliance, the operator shall use applicable test
methods described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (9) of this section, and
test under conditions described in paragraphs (b)(10) or (11) of this
section, as applicable. The owner or operator shall comply with the
monitoring provisions in Sec. 63.1366(b)(1) through (5) on the initial
compliance date.
(7) Outlet concentration correction for supplemental gases. If
supplemental gases are added to a vent stream for which compliance with
an outlet concentration standard in Sec. 63.1362 or 63.1363 will be
demonstrated, the owner or operator must correct the outlet
concentration as specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) Combustion device. If the vent stream is controlled with a
combustion device, the owner or operator must comply with the
provisions in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) To comply with a TOC outlet concentration standard in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iv)(A), (b)(4)(ii)(A), (b)(6), (c)(2)(iv)(B),
(c)(4), (d)(13), or Sec. 63.172 of subpart H of this part, the actual
TOC outlet concentration must be corrected to 3 percent oxygen.
(B) If the inlet stream to the combustion device contains any HCl,
chlorine, or halogenated compounds, and the owner or operator elects to
comply with a total HCl and chlorine outlet concentration standard in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(3)(ii), (b)(5)(ii), (b)(5)(iii), (b)(6), or (c)(4), the
actual total HCl and chlorine outlet concentration must be corrected to
3 percent oxygen.
(C) The integrated sampling and analysis procedures of Method 3B of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A shall be used to determine the actual oxygen
concentration (%O2). The samples shall be taken
during the same time that the TOC and HCl and chlorine samples are
taken. The concentration corrected to 3 percent oxygen (Cd)
shall be computed using Equation 7 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.006
Where:
Cc = concentration of TOC or total HCl and chlorine
corrected to 3 percent oxygen, dry basis, ppmv
Cm = total concentration of TOC or total HCl and chlorine in
the vented gas stream, average of samples, dry basis, ppmv
%O2d = concentration of oxygen measured in vented gas
stream, dry basis, percent by volume
(ii) Noncombustion devices. If a control device other than a
combustion device, and not in series with a combustion device, is used
to comply with a TOC or total HCl and chlorine outlet concentration
standard, the owner or operator must correct the actual concentration
for supplemental gases using Equation 8 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.007
Where:
Ca = corrected outlet TOC or total HCl and chlorine
concentration, dry basis, ppmv
Cm = actual TOC or total HCl and chlorine concentration
measured at control device outlet, dry basis, ppmv
Va = total volumetric flow rate of affected streams vented
to the control device
Vs = total volumetric flow rate of supplemental gases
(b) Test methods and conditions. When testing is conducted to
measure emissions from an affected source, the test methods specified
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (9) of this section shall be used.
Compliance tests shall be performed under conditions specified in
paragraphs (b)(10) and (11) of this section. Testing requirements for
condensers are specified in paragraph (b)(12) of this section.
(1) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 shall be used
for sample and velocity traverses.
(2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 shall
be used for velocity and volumetric flow rates.
(3) Method 3 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 shall be used for gas
analysis.
(4) Method 4 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 shall be used for
stack gas moisture.
(5) Concentration measurements shall be adjusted to negate the
dilution effects
[[Page 33611]]
of introducing nonaffected gaseous streams into the vent streams prior
to control or measurement. The following methods are specified for
concentration measurements of organic compounds:
(i) Method 18 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 may be used to
determine HAP concentration in any control device efficiency
determination.
(ii) Method 25 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 may be used to
determine total gaseous nonmethane organic concentration for control
efficiency determinations in combustion devices.
(iii) Method 25A of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 may be used to
determine the HAP or TOC concentration for control device efficiency
determinations under the conditions specified in Method 25 of appendix
A of 40 CFR part 60 for direct measurement of an effluent with a flame
ionization detector, or in demonstrating compliance with the 20 ppmv
TOC outlet standard. If Method 25A of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 is
used to determine the concentration of TOC for the 20 ppmv standard,
the instrument shall be calibrated on methane or the predominant HAP.
If calibrating on the predominant HAP, the use of Method 25A of
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 shall comply with paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(A)
through (C) of this section.
(A) The organic HAP used as the calibration gas for Method 25A, 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, shall be the single organic HAP representing
the largest percent by volume.
(B) The use of Method 25A, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is
acceptable if the response from the high level calibration gas is at
least 20 times the standard deviation of the response from the zero
calibration gas when the instrument is zeroed on the most sensitive
scale.
(C) The span value of the analyzer must be less than 100 ppmv.
(6) The methods in either paragraph (b)(6)(i) or (ii) of this
section shall be used to determine the concentration, in mg/dscm, of
total HCl and chlorine. Concentration measurements shall be adjusted to
negate the dilution effects of introducing nonaffected gaseous streams
into the vent streams prior to control or measurement.
(i) Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(ii) Any other method if the method or data have been validated
according to the applicable procedures of Method 301 of appendix A of
this part.
(7) Method 5 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 shall be used to
determine the concentration of particulate matter in exhaust gas
streams from bag dumps and product dryers.
(8) Wastewater analysis shall be conducted in accordance with
Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(i) through (iii) of subpart G of this part.
(9) Method 22 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 shall be used to
determine visible emissions from flares.
(10) Testing conditions for continuous processes. Testing of
process vents on equipment operating as part of a continuous process
shall consist of three one-hour runs. Gas stream volumetric flow rates
shall be measured every 15 minutes during each 1-hour run. Organic HAP
concentration shall be determined from samples collected in an
integrated sample over the duration of each one-hour test run, or from
grab samples collected simultaneously with the flow rate measurements
(every 15 minutes). If an integrated sample is collected for laboratory
analysis, the sampling rate shall be adjusted proportionally to reflect
variations in flow rate. For continuous gas streams, the emission rate
used to determine compliance shall be the average emission rate of the
three test runs.
(11) Testing conditions for batch processes. Except as provided in
paragraph (b)(12) of this section for condensers, testing of emissions
on equipment where the flow of gaseous emissions is intermittent (batch
operations) shall be conducted at absolute peak-case conditions or
hypothetical peak-case conditions, as specified in paragraphs
(b)(11)(i) and (ii) of this section, respectively. Gas stream
volumetric flow rates shall be measured at 15-minute intervals. Organic
HAP, TOC, or HCl and chlorine concentration shall be determined from
samples collected in an integrated sample over the duration of the
test, or from grab samples collected simultaneously with the flow rate
measurements (every 15 minutes). If an integrated sample is collected
for laboratory analysis, the sampling rate shall be adjusted
proportionally to reflect variations in flow rate. In all cases, a
site-specific test plan shall be submitted to the Administrator for
approval prior to testing in accordance with Sec. 63.7(c) of subpart A
of this part. The test plan shall include the emissions profile
described in paragraph (b)(11)(iii) of this section. The term ``HAP
mass loading'' as used in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this
section refers to the class of HAP, either organic or HCl and chlorine,
that the control device is intended to control.
(i) Absolute peak-case. If the most challenging conditions for the
control device occur under maximum HAP load, the absolute peak-case
conditions shall be characterized by the criteria presented in
paragraph (b)(11)(i)(A) or (B) of this section. Otherwise, absolute
peak-case conditions are defined by the conditions in paragraph
(b)(11)(i)(C) of this section.
(A) The period in which the inlet to the control device will
contain at least 50 percent of the maximum HAP mass load that may be
vented to the control device over any 8-hour period. An emission
profile as described in paragraph (b)(11)(iii)(A) of this section shall
be used to identify the 8-hour period that includes the maximum
projected HAP load.
(B) A 1-hour period of time in which the inlet to the control
device will contain the highest hourly HAP mass loading rate that may
be vented to the control device. An emission profile as described in
paragraph (b)(11)(iii)(A) of this section shall be used to identify the
1-hour period of maximum HAP loading.
(C) The period of time when a condition other than the maximum HAP
load is most challenging for the control device. These conditions
include, but are not limited to the following:
(1) Periods when the streams contain the highest combined VOC and
HAP hourly load, as described by the emission profiles in paragraph
(b)(11)(iii) of this section; or
(2) Periods when the streams contain HAP constituents that approach
the limits of solubility for scrubbing media; or
(3) Periods when the streams contain HAP constituents that approach
the limits of adsorptivity for carbon adsorption systems.
(ii) Hypothetical peak-case. Hypothetical peak-case conditions are
simulated test conditions that, at a minimum, contain the highest total
average hourly HAP load of emissions that would be predicted to be
vented to the control device from the emissions profile described in
either paragraph (b)(11)(iii)(B) or (C) of this section.
(iii) Emissions profile. The owner or operator may choose to
perform tests only during those periods of the peak-case episode(s)
that the owner or operator selects to control as part of achieving the
required emission reduction. The owner or operator shall develop an
emission profile for the vent to the control device that describes the
characteristics of the vent stream at the inlet to the control device
under either absolute or hypothetical peak-case conditions. The
emissions profile shall be developed based on the applicable procedures
described in paragraphs (b)(11)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section, as
required by paragraphs (b)(11)(i) and (ii) of this section.
[[Page 33612]]
(A) Emissions profile by process. The emissions profile must
consider all emission episodes that could contribute to the vent stack
for a period of time that is sufficient to include all processes
venting to the stack and shall consider production scheduling. The
profile shall describe the HAP load to the device that equals the
highest sum of emissions from the episodes that can vent to the control
device during the period of absolute peak-case conditions specified in
paragraph (b)(11)(i)(A), (B), or (C) as appropriate. Emissions per
episode shall be calculated using the procedures specified in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section. When complying with paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of
this section, emissions per episode shall be divided by the duration of
the episode if the duration of the episode is longer than 1 hour.
(B) Emission profile by equipment. The emission profile must
consist of emissions that meet or exceed the highest hourly HAP load
that would be expected under actual processing conditions. The profile
shall describe equipment configurations used to generate the emission
events, volatility of materials processed in the equipment, and the
rationale used to identify and characterize the emission events. The
emissions may be based on using a compound more volatile than compounds
actually used in the process(es), and the emissions may be generated
from all equipment in the process(es) or only selected equipment.
(C) Emission profile by capture and control device limitation. The
emission profile shall consider the capture and control system
limitations and the highest hourly emissions that can be routed to the
control device, based on maximum flow rate and concentrations possible
because of limitations on conveyance and control equipment (e.g., fans,
LEL alarms and safety bypasses).
(iv) Test duration. Three runs, at a minimum of 1 hour each, are
required for performance testing. Each run must occur over the same
absolute or hypothetical peak-case conditions, as defined in paragraph
(b)(11)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(12) Testing requirements for condensers. For emission streams
controlled using condensers, the owner or operator shall calculate the
condenser outlet gas temperature that is needed to meet the required
percent reduction.
(c) Initial compliance with process vent provisions. The owner or
operator of an affected source shall demonstrate compliance with the
process vent standards in Sec. 63.1362(b) using the procedures
described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Compliance with the process vent standards in Sec. 63.1362(b)
shall be demonstrated in accordance with the provisions specified in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(i) Initial compliance with the emission limit cutoffs in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(i) and (b)(4)(i) is demonstrated when the
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from the sum of all process vents
within a process are less than or equal to 0.15 Mg/yr. Uncontrolled HAP
emissions shall be determined using the procedures described in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(ii) Initial compliance with the emission limit cutoffs in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(3)(i) and (b)(5)(i) is demonstrated when the
uncontrolled HCl and Cl2 emissions from the sum of all
process vents within a process are less than or equal to 6.8 Mg/yr.
Initial compliance with the emission limit cutoffs in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(5)(ii) and (iii) is demonstrated when the uncontrolled
HCl and Cl2 emissions are greater than or equal to 6.8 Mg/yr
or greater than or equal to 191 Mg/yr, respectively. Uncontrolled
emissions shall be determined using the procedures described in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(iii) Initial compliance with the organic HAP percent reduction
requirements specified in Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii), and
(b)(4)(ii) is demonstrated by determining controlled HAP emissions
using the procedures described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section,
determining uncontrolled HAP emissions using the procedures described
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and calculating the applicable
percent reduction.
(iv) Initial compliance with the HCl and Cl2 percent
reduction requirements specified in Sec. 63.1362(b)(3)(ii), (b)(5)(ii),
and (b)(5)(iii) is demonstrated by determining controlled emissions of
HCl and Cl2 using the procedures described in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section, determining uncontrolled emissions of HCl and
Cl2 using the procedures described in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section, and calculating the applicable percent reduction.
(v) Initial compliance with the outlet concentration limits in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(iv)(A), (b)(3)(ii), (b)(4)(ii)(A), (b)(5)(ii), and
(b)(5)(iii) is demonstrated when the outlet TOC concentration is 20
ppmv or less and the outlet HCl and chlorine concentration is 20 ppmv
or less. The owner or operator shall demonstrate compliance by
fulfilling the requirements in paragraph (a)(6) of this section. If an
owner or operator elects to develop an emissions profile by process as
described in paragraph (b)(11)(iii)(A) of this section, uncontrolled
emissions shall be determined using the procedures in paragraph (c)(2)
of this section.
(vi) Initial compliance with the alternative standard in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(6) is demonstrated by fulfilling the requirements in
paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(vii) Initial compliance when using a flare is demonstrated by
fulfilling the requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(viii) No initial compliance demonstration is required for control
devices specified in Sec. 63.1362(l).
(2) Uncontrolled emissions. The owner or operator referred to from
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this section shall calculate
uncontrolled emissions according to the procedures described in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, as appropriate.
(i) Emission estimation procedures. The owner or operator shall
determine uncontrolled HAP emissions using emission measurements and/or
calculations for each batch emission episode according to the
engineering evaluation methodology in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) through
(H) of this section.
(A) Individual HAP partial pressures in multicomponent systems
shall be determined in accordance with the methods specified in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A)(1) through (3) of this section. Chemical
property data may be obtained from standard references.
(1) If the components are miscible in one another, use Raoult's law
to calculate the partial pressures;
(2) If the solution is a dilute aqueous mixture, use Henry's law
constants to calculate partial pressures;
(3) If Raoult's law or Henry's law are not appropriate or
available, use any of the methods specified in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i)(A)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Use experimentally obtained activity coefficients;
(ii) Use models such as the group-contribution models to predict
activity coefficients;
(iii) Assume the components of the system behave independently and
use the summation of all vapor pressures from the HAP as the total HAP
partial pressure;
(B) Charging or filling. Emissions from vapor displacement due to
transfer of material to a vessel shall be calculated using Equation 9
of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.008
Where:
[[Page 33613]]
E = mass of HAP emitted
Pi = partial pressure of the individual HAP
V = volume of gas displaced from the vessel
R = ideal gas law constant
T = temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute
MWi = molecular weight of the individual HAP
(C) Purging. Emissions from purging shall be calculated using
Equation 10 of this subpart, except that for purge flow rates greater
than 100 scfm, the mole fraction of HAP will be assumed to be 25
percent of the saturated value.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.009
Where:
E = mass of HAP emitted
V = purge flow rate at the temperature and pressure of the vessel vapor
space
R = ideal gas law constant
T = temperature of the vessel vapor space; absolute
Pi = partial pressure of the individual HAP
Pj = partial pressure of individual condensable VOC
compounds (including HAP)
PT = pressure of the vessel vapor space
MWi = molecular weight of the individual HAP
t = time of purge
n = number of HAP compounds in the emission stream
m = number of condensable VOC compounds (including HAP) in the emission
stream
(D) Heating. Emissions caused by heating the contents of a vessel
to a temperature less than the boiling point shall be calculated using
the procedures in either paragraph (c)(2)(i)(D)(1), (2), or (4) of this
section, as appropriate. If the contents of a vessel are heated to the
boiling point, emissions while boiling are assumed to be zero if the
owner or operator is complying with the provisions in paragraph
(d)(2)(i)(C)(3) of this section.
(1) If the final temperature to which the vessel contents are
heated is lower than 50 K below the boiling point of the HAP in the
vessel, then emissions shall be calculated using Equations 11 through
14 of this subpart.
(i) The mass of HAP emitted per episode shall be calculated using
Equation 11 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.010
Where:
E = mass of HAP vapor displaced from the vessel being heated
(Pi)Tn = partial pressure of each HAP in the
vessel headspace at initial (n = 1) and final (n = 2) temperatures
Pa1 = initial noncondensable gas pressure in the vessel, as
calculated using Equation 13 of this subpart
Pa2 = final noncondensable gas pressure in the vessel, as
calculated using Equation 13 of this subpart
= number of moles of noncondensable gas displaced,
as calculated using Equation 12 of this subpart
MWHAP = The average molecular weight of HAP present in the
vessel, as calculated using Equation 14 of this subpart:
n = number of HAP compounds in the displaced vapor
(ii) The moles of noncondensable gas displaced shall be calculated
using Equation 12 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.011
where:
= number of moles of noncondensable gas displaced
V = volume of free space in the vessel
R = ideal gas law constant
Pa1 = initial noncondensable gas pressure in the vessel, as
calculated using Equation 13 of this subpart
Pa2 = final noncondensable gas pressure in the vessel, as
calculated using Equation 13 of this subpart
T1 = initial temperature of vessel contents, absolute
T2 = final temperature of vessel contents, absolute
(iii) The initial and final pressure of the noncondensable gas in
the vessel shall be calculated according to Equation 13 of this
subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.012
Where:
Pan = partial pressure of noncondensable gas in the vessel
headspace at initial (n = 1) and final (n = 2) temperatures
Patm = atmospheric pressure
(Pj)Tn = partial pressure of each condensable
volatile organic compound (including HAP) in the vessel headspace at
the initial temperature (n = 1) and final (n = 2) temperature
(iv) The average molecular weight of HAP in the displaced gas shall
be calculated using Equation 14 of this subpart:
[[Page 33614]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.013
Where:
MWHAP = average molecular weight of HAP in the displaced gas
(Pi)Tn = partial pressure of each HAP in the
vessel headspace at the initial (T1) and final
(T2) temperatures
MWi = molecular weight of each HAP
n = number of HAP compounds in the emission stream
(2) If the vessel contents are heated to a temperature greater than
50 K below the boiling point, then emissions from the heating of a
vessel shall be calculated as the sum of the emissions calculated in
accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(D)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) For the interval from the initial temperature to the
temperature 50 K below the boiling point, emissions shall be calculated
using Equation 11 of this subpart, where T2 is the
temperature 50 K below the boiling point.
(ii) For the interval from the temperature 50 K below the boiling
point to the final temperature, emissions shall be calculated as the
summation of emissions for each 5 K increment, where the emission for
each increment shall be calculated using Equation 11 of this subpart.
If the final temperature of the heatup is lower than 5 K below the
boiling point, the final temperature for the last increment shall be
the final temperature of the heatup, even if the last increment is less
than 5 K. If the final temperature of the heatup is higher than 5 K
below the boiling point, the final temperature for the last increment
shall be the temperature 5 K below the boiling point, even if the last
increment is less than 5 K.
(3) While boiling, the vessel must be operated with a properly
operated process condenser. An initial demonstration that a process
condenser is properly operated is required for vessels that operate
process condensers without secondary condensers that are air pollution
control devices. The owner or operator must either measure the
condenser exhaust gas temperature and show it is less than the boiling
point of the substance(s) in the vessel, or perform a material balance
around the vessel and condenser to show that at least 99 percent of the
material vaporized while boiling is condensed. Uncontrolled emissions
are assumed to be zero under these conditions. The initial
demonstration shall be conducted for all appropriate operating
scenarios and documented in the Notification of Compliance Status
report as specified in Sec. 63.1368(f).
(4)(i) As an alternative to the procedures described in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i)(D)(1) and (2) of this section, emissions caused by heating a
vessel to any temperature less than the boiling point may be calculated
using Equation 15 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.014
Where:
E = mass of HAP vapor displaced from the vessel being heated
Navg = average gas space molar volume during the heating
process, as calculated using Equation 16 of this subpart
PT = total pressure in the vessel
Pi,1 = partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at
T1
Pi,2 = partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at
T2
MWHAP = average molecular weight of the HAP compounds, as
calculated using Equation 14 of this subpart
nHAP,1 = number of moles of total HAP in the vessel
headspace at T1
nHAP,2 = number of moles of total HAP in the vessel
headspace at T2
m = number of condensable VOC compounds (including HAP) in the emission
stream
(ii) The average gas space molar volume during the heating process
is calculated using Equation 16 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.015
Where:
Navg = average gas space molar volume during the heating
process
V = volume of free space in vessel
PT = total pressure in the vessel
R = ideal gas law constant
T1 = initial temperature of the vessel contents, absolute
T2 = final temperature of the vessel contents, absolute
(iii) The difference in the number of moles of total HAP in the
vessel headspace between the initial and final temperatures is
calculated using Equation 17 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.016
Where:
nHAP,2 = number of moles of total HAP in the vessel
headspace at T2
HAP,1 = number of moles of total HAP in the vessel headspace
at T1
V = volume of free space in vessel
R = ideal gas law constant
T1 = initial temperature of the vessel contents, absolute
[[Page 33615]]
T2 = final temperature of the vessel contents, absolute
Pi,1 = partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at
T1
Pi,2=partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds at
T2
n=number of HAP compounds in the emission stream
(E) Depressurization. Emissions from depressurization shall be
calculated using the procedures in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(E)(1) through
(5) of this section. Alternatively, the owner or operator may elect to
calculate emissions from depressurization using the procedures in
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(E)(6) of this section.
(1) The moles of HAP vapor initially in the vessel are calculated
using Equation 18 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.017
Where:
nHAP=moles of HAP vapor in the vessel
Pi=partial pressure of each HAP in the vessel vapor space
V=free volume in the vessel being depressurized
R=ideal gas law constant
T=absolute temperature in vessel
n=number of HAP compounds in the emission stream
(2) The initial and final moles of noncondensable gas present in
the vessel are calculated using Equations 19 and 20 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.019
Where:
n1=initial number of moles of noncondensable gas in the
vessel
n2=final number of moles of noncondensable gas in the vessel
V=free volume in the vessel being depressurized
Pnc1=initial partial pressure of the noncondensable gas, as
calculated using Equation 21 of this subpart
Pnc2=final partial pressure of the noncondensable gas, as
calculated using Equation 22 of this subpart
R=ideal gas law constant
T=temperature, absolute
(3) The initial and final partial pressures of the noncondensable
gas in the vessel are determined using Equations 21 and 22 of this
subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.021
where:
Pnc1=initial partial pressure of the noncondensable gas
Pnc2=final partial pressure of the noncondensable gas
P1 = initial vessel pressure
P2=final vessel pressure
Pj*=vapor pressure of each condensable VOC (including HAP)
in the emission stream
Xj=mole fraction of each condensable VOC (including HAP) in
the emission stream
m=number of condensable VOC compounds (including HAP) in the emission
stream
(4) The moles of HAP emitted during the depressurization are
calculated by taking an approximation of the average ratio of moles of
HAP to moles of noncondensable and multiplying by the total moles of
noncondensables released during the depressurization, using Equation 23
of this subpart:
Where:
nHAP,e=moles of HAP emitted
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.022
nHAP,1=moles of HAP vapor in vessel at the initial pressure,
as calculated using Equation 18 of this subpart
nHAP,2=moles of HAP vapor in vessel at the final pressure,
as calculated using Equation 18 of this subpart
n1=initial number of moles of noncondensable gas in the
vessel, as calculated using Equation 19 of this subpart
n2=final number of moles of noncondensable gas in the
vessel, as calculated using Equation 19 of this subpart
(5) Use Equation 24 of this subpart to calculate the mass of HAP
emitted:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.023
Where:
E=mass of HAP emitted
nHAP,e=moles of HAP emitted, as calculated using Equation 23
of this subpart
MWHAP=average molecular weight of the HAP as calculated
using Equation 14 of this subpart
(6) As an alternative to the procedures in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i)(E)(1) through (5) of this section, emissions from
depressurization may be calculated using Equation 25 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.024
where:
V=free volume in vessel being depressurized
R=ideal gas law constant
T=temperature of the vessel, absolute
P1=initial pressure in the vessel
P2=final pressure in the vessel
Pi=partial pressure of the individual HAP compounds
[[Page 33616]]
Pj=partial pressure of individual condensable VOC compounds
(including HAP)
MWi=molecular weight of the individual HAP compounds
n=number of HAP compounds in the emission stream
m=number of condensable VOC compounds (including HAP) in the emission
stream
(F) Vacuum systems. Calculate emissions from vacuum systems using
Equation 26 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.025
Where:
E=mass of HAP emitted
PT=absolute pressure of receiving vessel or ejector outlet
conditions, if there is no receiver
Pi=partial pressure of individual HAP at the receiver
temperature or the ejector outlet conditions
Pj=partial pressure of individual condensable VOC compounds
(including HAP) at the receiver temperature or the ejector outlet
conditions
La=total air leak rate in the system, mass/time
MWnc = molecular weight of noncondensable gas
t=time of vacuum operation
MWHAP=average molecular weight of HAP in the emission
stream, as calculated using Equation 14 of this subpart, with HAP
partial pressures calculated at the temperature of the receiver or
ejector outlet, as appropriate
n=number of HAP components in the emission stream
m=number of condensable VOC compounds (including HAP) in the emission
stream
(G) Gas evolution. Emissions from gas evolution shall be calculated
using Equation 10 of this subpart with V calculated using Equation 27
of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.026
Where:
V=volumetric flow rate of gas evolution
Wg=mass flow rate of gas evolution
R=ideal gas law constant
T=temperature at the exit, absolute
PT=vessel pressure
MWg=molecular weight of the evolved gas
(H) Air drying. Use Equation 28 of this subpart to calculate emissions
from air drying:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.027
Where:
E=mass of HAP emitted
B=mass of dry solids
PS1=HAP in material entering dryer, weight percent
PS2=HAP in material exiting dryer, weight percent.
(ii) Engineering assessments. The owner or operator shall conduct
an engineering assessment to determine uncontrolled HAP emissions for
each emission episode that is not due to vapor displacement, purging,
heating, depressurization, vacuum systems, gas evolution, or air
drying. For a given emission episode caused by any of these seven types
of activities, the owner or operator also may request approval to
determine uncontrolled HAP emissions based on an engineering
assessment. All data, assumptions, and procedures used in the
engineering assessment shall be documented in the Precompliance plan in
accordance with Sec. 63.1367(b). An engineering assessment includes,
but is not limited to, the information and procedures described in
paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section:
(A) Test results, provided the tests are representative of current
operating practices at the process unit. If test data show a greater
than 20 percent discrepancy between the test value and the estimated
value, the owner or operator may estimate emissions based on the test
data, and the results of the engineering assessment shall be included
in the Notification of Compliance Status report.
(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the
process under representative operating conditions.
(C) Maximum flow rate, HAP emission rate, concentration, or other
relevant parameter specified or implied within a permit limit
applicable to the process vent.
(D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering
principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Use of material balances based on process stoichiometry to
estimate maximum organic HAP concentrations;
(2) Estimation of maximum flow rate based on physical equipment
design such as pump or blower capacities; and
(3) Estimation of HAP concentrations based on saturation
conditions.
(3) Controlled emissions. Except for condensers, the owner or
operator shall determine controlled emissions using the procedures in
either paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable. For
condensers, controlled emissions shall be calculated using the emission
estimation equations described in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this
section. The owner or operator is not required to calculate controlled
emissions from devices described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section or
from flares for which compliance is demonstrated in accordance with
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If the owner or operator is complying
with an outlet concentration standard and the control device uses
supplemental gases, the outlet concentrations shall be corrected in
accordance with the procedures described in paragraph (a)(7) of this
section.
[[Page 33617]]
(i) Small control devices, except condensers. Controlled emissions
for each process vent that is controlled using a small control device,
except for a condenser, shall be determined by using the design
evaluation described in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) of this section, or by
conducting a performance test in accordance with paragraph (c)(3)(ii)
of this section.
(A) Design evaluation. The design evaluation shall include
documentation demonstrating that the control device being used achieves
the required control efficiency under absolute or hypothetical peak-
case conditions, as determined from the emission profile described in
paragraph (b)(11)(iii) of this section. The control efficiency
determined from this design evaluation shall be applied to uncontrolled
emissions to estimate controlled emissions. The documentation must be
conducted in accordance with the provisions in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section. The design evaluation shall also include the value(s) and
basis for the parameter(s) monitored under Sec. 63.1366.
(B) Whenever a small control device becomes a large control device,
the owner or operator must comply with the provisions in paragraph
(c)(3)(ii) of this section and submit the test report in the next
Periodic report.
(ii) Large control devices, except condensers. Controlled emissions
for each process vent that is controlled using a large control device,
except for a condenser, shall be determined by applying the control
efficiency of the large control device to the estimated uncontrolled
emissions. The control efficiency shall be determined by conducting a
performance test on the control device as described in paragraphs
(c)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section, or by using the results of a
previous performance test as described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D) of
this section. If the control device is intended to control only HCl and
chlorine, the owner or operator may assume the control efficiency of
organic HAP is 0 percent. If the control device is intended to control
only organic HAP, the owner or operator may assume the control
efficiency for HCl and chlorine is 0 percent.
(A) Except for control devices that are intended to meet outlet TOC
or HCl and chlorine concentrations of 20 ppmv, the performance test
shall be conducted by performing emission testing on the inlet and
outlet of the control device following the test methods and procedures
of paragraph (b) of this section. For control devices that meet outlet
TOC or HCl and chlorine concentrations of 20 ppmv, the performance
testing shall be conducted by performing emission testing on the outlet
of the control device following the test methods and procedures of
paragraph (b) of this section. Concentrations shall be calculated from
the data obtained through emission testing according to the procedures
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(B) Performance testing shall be conducted under absolute or
hypothetical peak-case conditions, as defined in paragraphs (b)(11)(i)
and (ii) of this section.
(C) The owner or operator may elect to conduct more than one
performance test on the control device for the purpose of establishing
more than one operating condition at which the control device achieves
the required control efficiency.
(D) The owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance
test for any control device for which a previous performance test was
conducted, provided the test was conducted using the same procedures
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) of this section over
conditions typical of the absolute or hypothetical peak-case, as
defined in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) and (ii) of this section. The results
of the previous performance test shall be used to demonstrate
compliance.
(iii) Condensers. The owner or operator using a condenser as a
control device shall determine controlled emissions using exhaust gas
temperature measurements and calculations for each batch emission
episode according to the engineering methodology in paragraphs
(c)(3)(iii)(A) through (G) of this section. Individual HAP partial
pressures shall be calculated as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of
this section.
(A) Emissions from vapor displacement due to transfer of material
to a vessel shall be calculated using Equation 9 of this subpart with T
set equal to the temperature of the receiver and the HAP partial
pressures determined at the temperature of the receiver.
(B) Emissions from purging shall be calculated using Equation 10 of
this subpart with T set equal to the temperature of the receiver and
the HAP partial pressures determined at the temperature of the
receiver.
(C) Emissions from heating shall be calculated using Equation 29 of
this subpart. In Equation 29 of this subpart, is
equal to the number of moles of noncondensable displaced from the
vessel, as calculated using Equation 12 of this subpart. In Equation 29
of this subpart, the HAP average molecular weight shall be calculated
using Equation 14 with the HAP partial pressures determined at the
temperature of the receiver.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.028
Where:
E=mass of HAP emitted
=moles of noncondensable gas displaced
PT=pressure in the receiver
Pi=partial pressure of the individual HAP at the receiver
temperature
Pj=partial pressure of the individual condensable VOC
(including HAP) at the receiver temperature
n=number of HAP compounds in the emission stream
MWHAP=the average molecular weight of HAP in vapor exiting
the receiver, as calculated using Equation 14 of this subpart
m=number of condensable VOC (including HAP) in the emission stream
(D)(1) Emissions from depressurization shall be calculated using
Equation 30 of this subpart.
[[Page 33618]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.028
Where:
E=mass of HAP vapor emitted
Vnc1=initial volume of noncondensable in the vessel,
corrected to the final pressure, as calculated using Equation 31 of
this subpart
Vnc2=final volume of noncondensable in the vessel, as
calculated using Equation 32 of this subpart
Pi=partial pressure of each individual HAP at the receiver
temperature
Pj=partial pressure of each condensable VOC (including HAP)
at the receiver temperature
PT=receiver pressure
T=temperature of the receiver, absolute
R=ideal gas law constant
MWHAP=the average molecular weight of HAP calculated using
Equation 14 of this subpart with partial pressures determined at the
receiver temperature
n=number of HAP compounds in the emission stream
m=number of condensable VOC (including HAP) in the emission stream
(2) The initial and final volumes of noncondensable gas present in
the vessel, adjusted to the pressure of the receiver, are calculated
using Equations 31 and 32 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.031
Where:
Vnc1=initial volume of noncondensable gas in the vessel
Vnc2=final volume of noncondensable gas in the vessel
V=free volume in the vessel being depressurized
Pnc1=initial partial pressure of the noncondensable gas, as
calculated using Equation 33 of this subpart
Pnc2=final partial pressure of the noncondensable gas, as
calculated using Equation 34 of this subpart
PT=pressure of the receiver
(3) Initial and final partial pressures of the noncondensable gas
in the vessel are determined using Equations 33 and 34 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.033
Where:
Pnc1=initial partial pressure of the noncondensable gas in
the vessel
Pnc2=final partial pressure of the noncondensable gas in the
vessel
P1=initial vessel pressure
P2=final vessel pressure
Pj=partial pressure of each condensable VOC (including HAP)
in the vessel
m=number of condensable VOC (including HAP) in the emission stream
(E) Emissions from vacuum systems shall be calculated using
Equation 26 of this subpart.
(F) Emissions from gas evolution shall be calculated using Equation
8 with V calculated using Equation 27 of this subpart, T set equal to
the receiver temperature, and the HAP partial pressures determined at
the receiver temperature. The term for time, t, in Equation 10 of this
subpart is not needed for the purposes of this calculation.
(G) Emissions from air drying shall be calculated using Equation 9
of this subpart with V equal to the air flow rate and Pi
determined at the receiver temperature.
(d) Initial compliance with storage vessel provisions. The owner or
operator of an existing or new affected source shall demonstrate
initial compliance with the storage vessel standards in
Sec. 63.1362(c)(2) through (4) by fulfilling the requirements in either
paragraph (d)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of this section, as
applicable. The owner or operator shall demonstrate initial compliance
with the planned routine maintenance provision in Sec. 63.1362(c)(5) by
fulfilling the requirements in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.
(1) Percent reduction requirement for control devices. If the owner
or operator equips a Group 1 storage vessel with a closed vent system
and control device, the owner or operator shall demonstrate initial
compliance with the percent reduction requirement of
Sec. 63.1362(c)(2)(iv)(A) or (c)(3) either by calculating the
efficiency of the control device using performance test data as
specified in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, or by preparing a
design evaluation as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Performance test option. If the owner or operator elects to
demonstrate initial compliance based on performance test data, the
efficiency of the control device shall be calculated as specified in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) At the reasonably expected maximum filling rate, Equations 35
and 36 of this subpart shall be used to calculate the mass rate of
total organic HAP at the inlet and outlet of the control device.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.035
Where:
Cij, Coj=concentration of sample component j of
the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device,
respectively, dry basis, ppmv
Ei, Eo=mass rate of total organic HAP at the
inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, dry basis, kg/hr
Mij, Moj=molecular weight of sample component j
of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device,
respectively, g/gmole
Qi, Qo=flow rate of gas stream at the inlet and
outlet of the control device, respectively, dscmm
K2=constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (parts per
million)-1 (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) (kilogram/
gram) (minute/hour), where standard temperature is 20 deg.C
(B) The percent reduction in total organic HAP shall be calculated
using Equation 37 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.036
[[Page 33619]]
Where:
R=control efficiency of control device, percent
Ei=mass rate of total organic HAP at the inlet to the
control device as calculated under paragraph (d)(l)(i)(A) of this
section, kilograms organic HAP per hour
Eo=mass rate of total organic HAP at the outlet of the
control device, as calculated under paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this
section, kilograms organic HAP per hour
(C) A performance test is not required to be conducted if the
control device used to comply with Sec. 63.1362(c) (storage tank
provisions) is also used to comply with Sec. 63.1362(b) (process vent
provisions), provided compliance with Sec. 63.1362(b) is demonstrated
in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and the demonstrated
percent reduction is equal to or greater than 95 percent.
(D) A performance test is not required for any control device for
which a previous test was conducted, provided the test was conducted
using the same procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(ii) Design evaluation option. If the owner or operator elects to
demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a design evaluation, the
owner or operator shall prepare documentation in accordance with the
design evaluation provisions in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, as
applicable. The design evaluation shall demonstrate that the control
device being used achieves the required control efficiency when the
storage vessel is filled at the reasonably expected maximum filling
rate.
(2) Outlet concentration requirement for control devices. If the
owner or operator equips a Group 1 storage vessel with a closed vent
system and control device, the owner or operator shall demonstrate
initial compliance with the outlet concentration requirements of
Sec. 63.1362(c)(2)(iv)(B) or (c)(3) by fulfilling the requirements of
paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
(3) Floating roof. If the owner or operator equips a Group 1
storage vessel with a floating roof to comply with the provisions in
Sec. 63.1362(c)(2) or (c)(3), the owner or operator shall demonstrate
initial compliance by complying with the procedures described in
paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Comply with Sec. 63.119(b), (c), or (d) of subpart G of this
part, as applicable, with the differences specified in
Sec. 63.1362(d)(2)(i) through (iii).
(ii) Comply with the procedures described in Sec. 63.120(a), (b),
or (c) of subpart G of this part, as applicable, with the differences
specified in Sec. 63.1362(d)(2)(i), (iv), and (v).
(4) Flares. If the owner or operator controls the emissions from a
Group 1 storage vessel with a flare, initial compliance is demonstrated
by fulfilling the requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(5) Exemptions from initial compliance. No initial compliance
demonstration is required for control devices specified in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section.
(6) Initial compliance with alternative standard. If the owner or
operator equips a Group 1 storage vessel with a closed-vent system and
control device, the owner or operator shall demonstrate initial
compliance with the alternative standard in Sec. 63.1362(c)(4) by
fulfilling the requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(7) Planned routine maintenance. The owner or operator shall
demonstrate initial compliance with the planned routine maintenance
provisions of Sec. 63.1362(c)(5) by including the anticipated periods
of planned routine maintenance for the first reporting period in the
Notification of Compliance Status report as specified in
Sec. 63.1368(f).
(e) Initial compliance with wastewater provisions. The owner or
operator shall demonstrate initial compliance with the wastewater
requirements by complying with the applicable provisions in Sec. 63.145
of subpart G of this part, except that the owner or operator need not
comply with the requirement to determine visible emissions that is
specified in Sec. 63.145(j)(1) of subpart G of this part, and
references to compounds in Table 8 of subpart G of this part are not
applicable for the purposes of this subpart.
(f) Initial compliance with the bag dump and product dryer
provisions. Compliance with the particulate matter concentration limits
specified in Sec. 63.1362(e) is demonstrated when the concentration of
particulate matter is less than 0.01 gr/dscf, as measured using the
method described in paragraph (b)(7) of this section.
(g) Initial compliance with the pollution prevention alternative
standard. The owner or operator shall demonstrate initial compliance
with Sec. 63.1362(h)(2) and (3) for a PAI process unit by preparing the
demonstration summary in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this
section and by calculating baseline and target annual HAP and VOC
factors in accordance with paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section.
To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.1362(h)(3), the owner or
operator must also comply with the procedures for add-on control
devices that are specified in paragraph (g)(4) of this section.
(1) Demonstration summary. The owner or operator shall prepare a
pollution prevention demonstration summary that shall contain, at a
minimum, the information in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section. The demonstration summary shall be included in the
Precompliance report as specified in Sec. 63.1368(e)(4).
(i) Descriptions of the methodologies and forms used to measure and
record consumption of HAP and VOC compounds.
(ii) Descriptions of the methodologies and forms used to measure
and record production of the product(s).
(iii) Supporting documentation for the descriptions provided in
accordance with paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section
including, but not limited to, operator log sheets and copies of daily,
monthly, and annual inventories of materials and products. The owner or
operator must show how this documentation will be used to calculate the
annual factors required in Sec. 63.1366(f)(1).
(2) Baseline factors. The baseline HAP and VOC factors shall be
calculated by dividing the consumption of total HAP and total VOC by
the production rate, per process, for the first 3-year period in which
the process was operational, beginning no earlier than the period
consisting of the 1987 through 1989 calendar years. Alternatively, for
a process that has been operational for less than 3 years, but more
than 1 year, the baseline factors shall be established for the time
period from startup of the process until the present.
(3) Target annual factors. The owner or operator must calculate
target annual factors in accordance with either paragraph (g)(3)(i) or
(ii) of this section.
(i) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.1362(h)(2), the
target annual HAP factor must be equal to or less than 15 percent of
the baseline HAP factor. For each reduction in a HAP that is also a
VOC, the target annual VOC factor must be lower than the baseline VOC
factor by an equivalent amount on a mass basis. For each reduction in a
HAP that is not a VOC, the target annual factor must be equal to or
less than the baseline VOC factor.
(ii) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.1362(h)(3)(i),
the target annual HAP and VOC factors must be calculated as specified
in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this section, except that when ``15 percent''
is referred to in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this section, ``50 percent''
shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph.
[[Page 33620]]
(4) Requirements for add-on control devices. Initial compliance
with the requirements for add-on control devices in
Sec. 63.1362(h)(3)(ii) is demonstrated when the requirements in
paragraphs (g)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section are met.
(i) The yearly reductions associated with add-on controls that meet
the criteria of Sec. 63.1362(h)(3)(ii)(A) through (D), must be equal to
or greater than the amounts calculated using Equations 38 and 39 of
this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.038
Where:
HAPreduced = the annual HAP emissions reduction required by
add-on controls, kg/yr
HFbase = the baseline HAP factor, kg HAP consumed/kg product
RP2 = the fractional reduction in the annual HAP factor
achieved using pollution prevention where RP2 is
0.5
VOCreduced = required VOC emission reduction from add-on
controls, kg/yr
VFbase = baseline VOC factor, kg VOC emitted/kg production
VFP2 = reduction in VOC factor achieved by pollution
prevention, kg VOC emitted/kg production
VFannual = target annual VOC factor, kg VOC emitted/kg
production
Mprod = production rate, kg/yr
(ii) Demonstration that the criteria in Sec. 63.1362(i)(3)(ii)(A)
through (D) are met shall be accomplished through a description of the
control device and of the material streams entering and exiting the
control device.
(iii) The annual reduction achieved by the add-on control shall be
quantified using the methods described in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(h) Compliance with emissions averaging provisions. An owner or
operator shall demonstrate compliance with the emissions averaging
provisions of Sec. 63.1362(h) by fulfilling the requirements of
paragraphs (h)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall develop and submit for approval an
Emissions Averaging Plan containing all the information required in
Sec. 63.1367(d). The Emissions Averaging Plan shall be submitted no
later than 18 months prior to the compliance date of the standard. The
Administrator shall determine within 120 calendar days whether the
Emissions Averaging Plan submitted by sources using emissions averaging
presents sufficient information. The Administrator shall either approve
the Emissions Averaging Plan, request changes, or request that the
owner or operator submit additional information. Once the Administrator
receives sufficient information, the Administrator shall approve,
disapprove, or request changes to the plan within 120 days. If the
Emissions Averaging Plan is disapproved, the owner or operator must
still be in compliance with the standard by the compliance date.
(2) For all points included in an emissions average, the owner or
operator shall comply with the procedures that are specified in
paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Calculate and record monthly debits for all Group 1 emission
points that are controlled to a level less stringent than the standard
for those emission points. Equations in paragraph (h)(5) of this
section shall be used to calculate debits.
(ii) Calculate and record monthly credits for all Group 1 and Group
2 emission points that are overcontrolled to compensate for the debits.
Equations in paragraph (h)(6) of this section shall be used to
calculate credits. All process vent, storage vessel, and wastewater
emission points except those specified in Sec. 63.1362(h)(1) through
(6) may be included in the credit calculation.
(iii) Demonstrate that annual credits calculated according to
paragraph (h)(6) of this section are greater than or equal to debits
calculated according to paragraph (h)(5) of this section for the same
annual compliance period. The initial demonstration in the Emissions
Averaging Plan or operating permit application that credit-generating
emission points will be capable of generating sufficient credits to
offset the debit-generating emission points shall be made under
representative operating conditions. After the compliance date, actual
operating data shall be used for all debit and credit calculations.
(iv) Demonstrate that debits calculated for a quarterly (3-month)
period according to paragraph (h)(5) of this section are not more than
1.30 times the credits for the same period calculated according to
paragraph (h)(6) of this section. Compliance for the quarter shall be
determined based on the ratio of credits and debits from that quarter,
with 30 percent more debits than credits allowed on a quarterly basis.
(v) Record and report quarterly and annual credits and debits as
required in Secs. 63.1367(d) and 63.1368(d).
(3) Credits and debits shall not include emissions during periods
of malfunction. Credits and debits shall not include periods of startup
and shutdown for continuous processes.
(4) During periods of monitoring excursions, credits and debits
shall be adjusted as specified in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) through (iii) of
this section.
(i) No credits shall be assigned to the credit-generating emission
point.
(ii) Maximum debits shall be assigned to the debit-generating
emission point.
(iii) The owner or operator may demonstrate to the Administrator
that full or partial credits or debits should be assigned using the
procedures in Sec. 63.150(l) of subpart G of this part.
(5) Debits are generated by the difference between the actual
emissions from a Group 1 emission point that is uncontrolled or
controlled to a level less stringent than the applicable standard and
the emissions allowed for the Group 1 emission point. Debits shall be
calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraphs
(h)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Source-wide debits shall be calculated using Equation 40 of
this subpart.
Debits and all terms of Equation 40 of this subpart are in units of
Mg/month
Where:
[[Page 33621]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.039
EPViU = uncontrolled emissions from process i calculated
according to the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(5)(ii) of this
section
EPViA = actual emissions from each Group 1 process i that is
uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less stringent than the
applicable standard. EPViA is calculated using the
procedures in paragraph (h)(5)(ii) of this section
ESiU = uncontrolled emissions from storage vessel i
calculated according to the procedures specified in paragraph
(h)(5)(iii) of this section
ESiA = actual emissions from each Group 1 storage vessel i
that is uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less stringent than
the applicable standard. ESiA is calculated using the
procedures in paragraph (h)(5)(iii) of this section
EWWiC = emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream i if
the standard had been applied to the uncontrolled emissions.
EWWiC is calculated using the procedures in paragraph
(h)(5)(iv) of this section
EWWiA = actual emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream
i that is uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less stringent than
the applicable standard. EWWiA is calculated using the
procedures in paragraph (h)(5)(iv) of this section
n = the number of emission points being included in the emissions
average; the value of n is not necessarily the same for process vents,
storage tanks, and wastewater
(ii) Emissions from process vents shall be calculated in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(5)(ii)(A) through (C)
of this section.
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (h)(5)(ii)(C) of this section,
uncontrolled emissions for process vents shall be calculated using the
procedures that are specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(B) Except as provided in paragraph (h)(5)(ii)(C) of this section,
actual emissions for process vents shall be calculated using the
procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section,
as applicable.
(C) As an alternative to the procedures described in paragraphs
(h)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section, for continuous processes,
uncontrolled and actual emissions may be calculated by the procedures
described in Sec. 63.150(g)(2) of subpart G of this part. For purposes
of complying with this paragraph, a 90 percent reduction shall apply
instead of the 98 percent reduction in Sec. 63.150(g)(2)(iii) of
subpart G of this part, and the term ``process condenser'' shall apply
instead of the term ``recovery device'' in Sec. 63.150(g)(2) for the
purposes of this subpart.
(iii) Uncontrolled emissions from storage vessels shall be
calculated in accordance with the procedures described in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section. Actual emissions from storage vessels shall be
calculated using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.150(g)(3)(ii),
(iii), or (iv) of subpart G of this subpart, as appropriate, except
that when Sec. 63.150(g)(3)(ii)(B) refers to the procedures in
Sec. 63.120(d) for determining percent reduction for a control device,
Sec. 63.1365(d)(2) or (3) shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(iv) Emissions from wastewater shall be calculated using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.150(g)(5) of subpart G of this part.
(6) Credits are generated by the difference between emissions that
are allowed for each Group 1 and Group 2 emission point and the actual
emissions from that Group 1 or Group 2 emission point that have been
controlled after November 15, 1990 to a level more stringent than what
is required in this subpart or any other State or Federal rule or
statute. Credits shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraphs (h)(6)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Source-wide credits shall be calculated using Equation 41 of
this subpart. Credits and all terms in Equation 41 of this subpart are
in units of Mg/month, the baseline date is November 15, 1990, the terms
consisting of a constant multiplied by the uncontrolled emissions are
the emissions from each emission point subject to the standards in
Sec. 63.1362(b) and (c) that is controlled to a level more stringent
than the standard.
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.040
EPV1iU = uncontrolled emissions from each Group 1 process i
calculated according to the procedures in paragraph (h)(6)(iii)(A) of
this section
EPV1iA = actual emissions from each Group 1 process i that
is controlled to a level more stringent than the applicable standard.
EPV1iA is calculated according to the procedures in
paragraph (h)(6)(iii)(B) of this section
EPV2iB = emissions from each Group 2 process i at the
baseline date. EPV2iB is calculated according to the
procedures in paragraph (h)(6)(iii)(C) of this section
EPV2iA = actual emissions from each Group 2 process i that
is controlled. EPV2iA is calculated according to the
procedures in paragraph (h)(6)(iii)(C) of this section
ES1iU = uncontrolled emissions from each Group 1 storage
vessel i calculated according to the procedures in paragraph (h)(6)(iv)
of this section
ES1iA = actual emissions from each Group 1 storage vessel i
that is controlled to a level more stringent that the applicable
standard. ES1iA is calculated according to the procedures in
paragraph (h)(6)(iv) of this section
ES2iB = emissions from each Group 2 storage vessel i at the
baseline date. ES2iB is calculated according to the
procedures in paragraph (h)(6)(iv) of this section
ES2iA = actual emissions from each Group 2 storage vessel i
that is controlled. ES2iA is calculated according to the
procedures in paragraph (h)(6)(iv) of this section
[[Page 33622]]
EWW1iC = emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream i if
the standard had been applied to the uncontrolled emissions.
EWW1iC is calculated according to the procedures in
paragraph (h)(6)(v) of this section
EWW1iA= emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream i that
is controlled to a level more stringent that the applicable standard.
EWW1iA is calculated according to the procedures in
paragraph (h)(6)(v) of this section
EWW2iB = emissions from each Group 2 wastewater stream i at
the baseline date. EWW2iB is calculated according to the
procedures in paragraph (h)(6)(v) of this section
EWW2iA = actual emissions from each Group 2 wastewater
stream i that is controlled. EWW2iA is calculated according
to the procedures in paragraph (h)(6)(v) of this section
n = number of Group 1 emission points that are included in the
emissions average. The value of n is not necessarily the same for
process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater
m = number of Group 2 emission points included in the emissions
average. The value of m is not necessarily the same for process vents,
storage tanks, and wastewater
D = discount factor equal to 0.9 for all credit-generating emission
points except those controlled by a pollution prevention measure, which
will not be discounted
(ii) For an emission point controlled using a pollution prevention
measure, the nominal efficiency for calculating credits shall be as
determined as described in Sec. 63.150(j) of subpart G of this part.
(iii) Emissions from process vents shall be calculated in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(6)(iii)(A)
through (C) of this section.
(A) Uncontrolled emissions from Group 1 process vents shall be
calculated according to the procedures in paragraph (h)(5)(ii)(A) or
(C) of this section.
(B) Actual emissions from Group 1 process vents with a nominal
efficiency greater than the applicable standard or a pollution
prevention measure that achieves reductions greater than the applicable
standard shall be calculated using Equation 42 of this subpart:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN99.041
Where:
EPV1iA = actual emissions from each Group 1 process i that
is controlled to a level more stringent than the applicable standard
EPV1iU = uncontrolled emissions from each Group 1 process i
Neff = nominal efficiency of control device or pollution
prevention measure, percent
(C) Baseline and actual emissions from Group 2 process vents shall
be calculated according to the procedures in Sec. 63.150(h)(2)(iii) and
(iv) with the following modifications:
(1) The term ``90 percent reduction'' shall apply instead of the
term ``98 percent reduction''; and
(2) When the phrase ``paragraph (g)(2)'' is referred to in
Sec. 63.150(h)(2)(iii) and (iv), the provisions in paragraph (h)(5)(ii)
of this section shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(iv) Uncontrolled emissions from storage vessels shall be
calculated according to the procedures described in paragraph (d)(1) of
this section. Actual and baseline emissions from storage tanks shall be
calculated according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.150(h)(3)
of subpart G of this part, except when Sec. 63.150(h)(3) refers to
Sec. 63.150(g)(3)(i), paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall apply for
the purposes of this subpart.
(v) Emissions from wastewater shall be calculated using the
procedures in Sec. 63.150(h)(5) of subpart G of this part.
Sec. 63.1366 Monitoring and inspection requirements.
(a) To provide evidence of continued compliance with the standard,
the owner or operator of any existing or new affected source shall
install, operate, and maintain monitoring devices as specified in this
section. During the initial compliance demonstration, maximum or
minimum operating parameter levels, or other design and operating
characteristics, as appropriate, shall be established for emission
sources that will indicate the source is in compliance. Test data,
calculations, or information from the evaluation of the control device
design, as applicable, shall be used to establish the operating
parameter level or characteristic.
(b) Monitoring for control devices. (1) Parameters to monitor.
Except as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, for each
control device, the owner or operator shall install and operate
monitoring devices and operate within the established parameter levels
to ensure continued compliance with the standard. Monitoring parameters
are specified for control scenarios in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) through
(xii) of this section, and are summarized in Table 3 of this subpart.
(i) Periodic verification. For control devices that control vent
streams containing total HAP emissions less than 0.91 Mg/yr, before
control, monitoring shall consist of a periodic verification that the
device is operating properly. This verification shall include, but not
be limited to, a daily or more frequent demonstration that the unit is
working as designed and may include the daily measurements of the
parameters described in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) through (xii) of this
section. This demonstration shall be included in the Precompliance
plan, to be submitted 6 months prior to the compliance date of the
standard.
(ii) Scrubbers. For affected sources using liquid scrubbers, the
owner or operator shall establish a minimum scrubber liquid flow rate
or pressure drop as a site-specific operating parameter which must be
measured and recorded at least once every 15 minutes during the period
in which the scrubber is controlling HAP from an emission stream as
required by the standards in Sec. 63.1362. If the scrubber uses a
caustic solution to remove acid emissions, the pH of the effluent
scrubber liquid shall also be monitored once a day. The minimum
scrubber liquid flow rate or pressure drop shall be based on the
conditions under which the initial compliance demonstration was
conducted.
(A) The monitoring device used to determine the pressure drop shall
be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate to within a gage
pressure of 10 percent of the maximum pressure drop
measured.
(B) The monitoring device used for measurement of scrubber liquid
flowrate shall be certified by the manufacturer to
[[Page 33623]]
be accurate to within 10 percent of the design scrubber
liquid flowrate.
(C) The monitoring device shall be calibrated annually.
(iii) Condensers. For each condenser, the owner or operator shall
establish the maximum condenser outlet gas temperature as a site-
specific operating parameter which must be measured and recorded at
least once every 15 minutes during the period in which the condenser is
controlling HAP from an emission stream as required by the standards in
Sec. 63.1362.
(A) The temperature monitoring device must be accurate to within
2 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius or
2.5 deg.C, whichever is greater.
(B) The temperature monitoring device must be calibrated annually.
(iv) Regenerative carbon adsorbers. For each regenerative carbon
adsorber, the owner or operator shall comply with the provisions in
paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(A) through (F) of this section.
(A) Establish the regeneration cycle characteristics specified in
paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(A) (1) through (4) of this section under absolute
or hypothetical peak-case conditions, as defined in
Sec. 63.1365(b)(11)(i) or (ii).
(1) Minimum regeneration frequency (i.e., operating time since last
regeneration);
(2) Minimum temperature to which the bed is heated during
regeneration;
(3) Maximum temperature to which the bed is cooled, measured within
15 minutes of completing the cooling phase; and
(4) Minimum regeneration stream flow.
(B) Monitor and record the regeneration cycle characteristics
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(B) (1) through (4) of this section
for each regeneration cycle.
(1) Regeneration frequency (i.e., operating time since end of last
regeneration);
(2) Temperature to which the bed is heated during regeneration;
(3) Temperature to which the bed is cooled, measured within 15
minutes of the completion of the cooling phase; and
(4) Regeneration stream flow.
(C) Use a temperature monitoring device that is accurate to within
2 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius or
2.5 deg.C, whichever is greater.
(D) Use a regeneration stream flow monitoring device capable of
recording the total regeneration stream flow to within 10
percent of the established value (i.e., accurate to within
10 percent of the reading).
(E) Calibrate the temperature and flow monitoring devices annually.
(F) Conduct an annual check for bed poisoning in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications.
(v) Nonregenerative carbon adsorbers. For each nonregenerative
carbon adsorption system such as a carbon canister that does not
regenerate the carbon bed directly onsite in the control device, the
owner or operator shall replace the existing carbon bed in the control
device with fresh carbon on a regular schedule based on one of the
following procedures:
(A) Monitor the TOC concentration level in the exhaust vent stream
from the carbon adsorption system on a regular schedule, and replace
the existing carbon with fresh carbon immediately when carbon
breakthrough is indicated. The monitoring frequency shall be daily or
at an interval no greater than 20 percent of the time required to
consume the total carbon working capacity under absolute or
hypothetical peak-case conditions as defined in Sec. 63.1365(b)(11)(i)
or (ii), whichever is longer.
(B) Establish the maximum time interval between replacement, and
replace the existing carbon before this time interval elapses. The time
interval shall be established based on the conditions anticipated under
absolute or hypothetical peak-case, as defined in
Sec. 63.1365(b)(11)(i) or (ii).
(vi) Flares. For each flare, the presence of the pilot flame shall
be monitored at least once every 15 minutes during the period in which
the flare is controlling HAP from an emission stream subject to the
standards in Sec. 63.1362. The monitoring device shall be calibrated
annually.
(vii) Thermal incinerators. For each thermal incinerator, the owner
or operator shall monitor the temperature of the gases exiting the
combustion chamber as the site-specific operating parameter which must
be measured and recorded at least once every 15 minutes during the
period in which the combustion device is controlling HAP from an
emission stream subject to the standards in Sec. 63.1362.
(A) The temperature monitoring device must be accurate to within
0.75 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius
or 2.5 deg.C, whichever is greater.
(B) The monitoring device must be calibrated annually.
(viii) Catalytic incinerators. For each catalytic incinerator, the
parameter levels that the owner or operator shall establish are the
minimum temperature of the gas stream immediately before the catalyst
bed and the minimum temperature difference across the catalyst bed. The
owner or operator shall monitor the temperature of the gas stream
immediately before and after the catalyst bed, and calculate the
temperature difference across the catalyst bed, at least once every 15
minutes during the period in which the catalytic incinerator is
controlling HAP from an emission stream subject to the standards in
Sec. 63.1362.
(A) The temperature monitoring devices must be accurate to within
0.75 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius
or 2.5 deg.C, whichever is greater.
(B) The temperature monitoring devices must be calibrated annually.
(ix) Process heaters and boilers. (A) Except as specified in
paragraph (b)(1)(ix)(B) of this section, for each boiler or process
heater, the owner or operator shall monitor the temperature of the
gases exiting the combustion chamber as the site-specific operating
parameter which must be monitored and recorded at least every 15
minutes during the period in which the boiler or process heater is
controlling HAP from an emission stream subject to the standards in
Sec. 63.1362.
(1) The temperature monitoring device must be accurate to within
0.75 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius
or 2.5 deg.C, whichever is greater.
(2) The temperature monitoring device must be calibrated annually.
(B) The owner or operator is exempt from the monitoring
requirements specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ix)(A) of this section if
either:
(1) All vent streams are introduced with primary fuel; or
(2) The design heat input capacity of the boiler or process heater
is 44 megawatts or greater.
(x) Continuous emission monitor. As an alternative to the
parameters specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) through (ix) of this
section, an owner or operator may monitor and record the outlet HAP
concentration or both the outlet TOC concentration and outlet total HCl
and chlorine concentration at least every 15 minutes during the period
in which the control device is controlling HAP from an emission stream
subject to the standards in Sec. 63.1362. The owner or operator need
not monitor the total HCl and chlorine concentration if the owner or
operator determines that the emission stream does not contain HCl or
chlorine. The owner or operator need not monitor the TOC concentration
if the owner or operator determines the emission stream does not
contain organic compounds. The HAP or TOC monitor must meet the
requirements of Performance
[[Page 33624]]
Specification 8 or 9 of appendix B of part 60 and must be installed,
calibrated, and maintained, according to Sec. 63.8 of subpart A of this
part. As part of the QA/QC Plan, calibration of the device must
include, at a minimum, quarterly cylinder gas audits. If supplemental
gases are introduced before the control device, the monitored
concentration shall be corrected as specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(7).
(xi) Fabric filters. For each fabric filter used to control
particulate matter emissions from bag dumps and product dryers subject
to Sec. 63.1362(e), the owner or operator shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and continuously operate a bag leak detection system that
meets the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(xi)(A) through (G) of this
section.
(A) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative particulate matter emissions.
(B) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound when an increase in particulate matter emissions
over a preset level is detected.
(C) For positive pressure fabric filters, a bag leak detector must
be installed in each fabric filter compartment or cell. If a negative
pressure or induced air filter is used, the bag leak detector must be
installed downstream of the fabric filter. Where multiple bag leak
detectors are required (for either type of fabric filter), the system
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(D) The bag leak detection system shall be installed, operated,
calibrated and maintained in a manner consistent with available
guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or, in the
absence of such guidance, the manufacturer's written specifications and
instructions.
(E) Calibration of the system shall, at a minimum, consist of
establishing the relative baseline output level by adjusting the range
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set
points and the alarm delay time.
(F) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not
adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or
alarm delay time, except as established in an operation and maintenance
plan that is to be submitted with the Precompliance plan. In no event
shall the sensitivity be increased more than 100 percent or decreased
by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment
follows a complete baghouse inspection which demonstrates the baghouse
is in good operating condition.
(G) If the alarm on a bag leak detection system is triggered, the
owner or operator shall, within 1 hour of an alarm, initiate the
procedures to identify the cause of the alarm and take corrective
action as specified in the corrective action plan.
(xii) For each waste management unit, treatment process, or control
device used to comply with Sec. 63.1362(d), the owner or operator shall
comply with the procedures specified in Sec. 63.143 of subpart G of
this part, except that when the procedures to request approval to
monitor alternative parameters according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.151(f) are referred to in Sec. 63.143(d)(3), the procedures in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section shall apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
(xiii) Closed-vent system visual inspections. The owner or operator
shall perform monthly visual inspections of each closed vent system as
specified in Sec. 63.1362(j).
(2) Averaging periods. Averaging periods for parametric monitoring
levels shall be established according to paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, a
daily (24-hour) or block average shall be calculated as the average of
all values for a monitored parameter level set according to the
procedures in (b)(3)(iii) of this section recorded during the operating
day or block.
(ii) The operating day or block shall be defined in the
Notification of Compliance Status report. The operating day may be from
midnight to midnight or another continuous 24-hour period. The
operating block may be used as an averaging period only for vents from
batch operations, and is limited to a period of time that is, at a
maximum, equal to the time from the beginning to end of a series of
consecutive batch operations.
(iii) Monitoring values taken during periods in which the control
devices are not controlling HAP from an emission stream subject to the
standards in Sec. 63.1362, as indicated by periods of no flow or
periods when only streams that are not subject to the standards in
Sec. 63.1362 are controlled, shall not be considered in the averages.
Where flow to the device could be intermittent, the owner or operator
shall install, calibrate and operate a flow indicator at the inlet or
outlet of the control device to identify periods of no flow.
(3) Procedures for setting parameter levels for control devices
used to control emissions from process vents. (i) Small control
devices. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, for
devices controlling less than 10 tons/yr of HAP for which a performance
test is not required, the parameteric levels shall be set based on the
design evaluation required in Sec. 63.1365(c)(3)(i)(A). If a
performance test is conducted, the monitoring parameter level shall be
established according to the procedures in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this
section.
(ii) Large control devices. For devices controlling greater than or
equal to 10 tons/yr of HAP for which a performance test is required,
the parameter level must be established as follows:
(A) If the operating parameter level to be established is a maximum
or minimum, it must be based on the average of the average values from
each of the three test runs.
(B) The owner or operator may establish the parametric monitoring
level(s) based on the performance test supplemented by engineering
assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations. Performance testing
is not required to be conducted over the entire range of expected
parameter values. The rationale for the specific level for each
parameter, including any data and calculations used to develop the
level(s) and a description of why the level indicates proper operation
of the control device shall be provided in the Precompliance plan.
Determination of the parametric monitoring level using these procedures
is subject to review and approval by the Administrator.
(iii) Parameter levels for control devices controlling batch
process vents. For devices controlling batch process vents alone or in
combination with other streams, the level(s) shall be established in
accordance with paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) A single level for the batch process(es) shall be calculated
from the initial compliance demonstration.
(B) The owner or operator may establish separate levels for each
batch emission episode or combination of emission episodes selected to
be controlled. If separate monitoring levels are established, the owner
or operator must provide a record indicating at what point in the daily
schedule or log of processes required to be recorded per the
requirements of Sec. 63.1367(b)(7), the parameter being monitored
changes levels and must record at least one reading of the new
parameter level, even if the duration of monitoring for the new
parameter level is less than 15 minutes.
(4) Requesting approval to monitor alternative parameters. The
owner or operator may request approval to monitor parameters other than
those required by paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) through (xiii) of this section.
The request shall be submitted according to the
[[Page 33625]]
procedures specified in Sec. 63.8(f) of subpart A of this part or in
the Precompliance report (as specified in Sec. 63.1368(e)).
(5) Monitoring for the alternative standards. For control devices
that are used to comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.1362(b)(6) and
(c)(4), the owner or operator shall monitor and record the outlet TOC
concentration and the outlet total HCl and chlorine concentration at
least once every 15 minutes during the period in which the device is
controlling HAP from emission streams subject to the standards in
Sec. 63.1362. A TOC monitor meeting the requirements of Performance
Specification 8 or 9 of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 shall be
installed, calibrated, and maintained, according to Sec. 63.8 of
subpart A of this part. The owner or operator need not monitor the
total HCl and chlorine concentration if the owner or operator
determines that the emission stream does not contain HCl or chlorine.
The owner or operator need not monitor for TOC concentration if the
owner or operator determines that the emission stream does not contain
organic compounds. If supplemental gases are introduced before the
control device, the monitored concentration shall be corrected as
specified in Sec. 63.1365(a)(7).
(6) Exceedances of operating parameters. An exceedance of an
operating parameter is defined as one of the following:
(i) If the parameter level, averaged over the operating day or
block, is below a minimum value established during the initial
compliance demonstration.
(ii) If the parameter level, averaged over the operating day or
block, is above the maximum value established during the initial
compliance demonstration.
(iii) A loss of all pilot flames for a flare during an operating
day or block. Multiple losses of all pilot flames during an operating
day constitutes one exceedance.
(iv) Each operating day or block for which the time interval
between replacement of a nonregenerative carbon adsorber exceeds the
interval established in paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section.
(v) Each instance in which procedures to initiate the response to a
bag leak detector alarm within 1 hour of the alarm as specified in the
corrective action plan.
(7) Excursions. Excursions are defined by either of the two cases
listed in paragraph (b)(7)(i) or (ii) of this section. An excursion
also occurs if the periodic verification for a small control device is
not conducted as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
(i) When the period of control device operation is 4 hours or
greater in an operating day or block and monitoring data are
insufficient to constitute a valid hour of data, as defined in
paragraph (b)(7)(iii) of this section, for at least 75 percent of the
operating hours.
(ii) When the period of control device operation is less than 4
hours in an operating day or block and more than 1 of the hours during
the period of operation does not constitute a valid hour of data due to
insufficient monitoring data.
(iii) Monitoring data are insufficient to constitute a valid hour
of data, as used in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section, if
measured values are unavailable for any of the required 15-minute
periods within the hour.
(8) Violations. Exceedances of parameters monitored according to
the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(1) (iv) through (ix) of
this section or excursions as defined by paragraphs (b)(7) (i) and (ii)
of this section constitute violations of the operating limit according
to paragraphs (b)(8) (i), (ii), and (iv) of this section. Exceedances
of the temperature limit monitored according to the provisions of
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or exceedances of the outlet
concentrations monitored according to the provisions of paragraph
(b)(1)(x) of this section constitute violations of the emission limit
according to paragraphs (b)(8) (i), (ii), and (iv) of this section.
Exceedances of the outlet concentrations monitored according to the
provisions of paragraph (b)(5) of this section constitute violations of
the emission limit according to the provisions of paragraphs (b)(8)
(iii) and (iv) of this section.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(8)(iv) of this section, for
episodes occurring more than once per day, exceedances of established
parameter limits or excursions will result in no more than one
violation per operating day for each monitored item of equipment
utilized in the process.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(8)(iv) of this section,
for control devices used for more than one process in the course of an
operating day, exceedances or excursions will result in no more than
one violation per operating day, per control device, for each process
for which the control device is in service.
(iii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(8)(iv) of this section,
exceedances of the 20 ppmv TOC outlet emission limit, averaged over the
operating day, will result in no more than one violation per day per
control device. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(8)(iv) of this
section, exceedances of the 20 ppmv HCl and chlorine outlet emission
limit, averaged over the operating day, will result in no more than one
violation per day per control device.
(iv) Periods of time when monitoring measurements exceed the
parameter values as well as periods of inadequate monitoring data do
not constitute a violation if they occur during a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, and the facility follows its startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
(c) Monitoring for uncontrolled emission rates. The owner or
operator shall demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limit in Sec. 63.1362 (b)(2)(i) or (b)(4)(i) by calculating daily a
365-day rolling summation of uncontrolled emissions based on the
uncontrolled emissions per emission episode, as calculated using the
procedures in Sec. 63.1365(c)(2), and records of the number of batches
produced. Each day that the summation for a process exceeds 0.15 Mg/yr
is considered a violation of the emission limit.
(d) Monitoring for equipment leaks. The standard for equipment
leaks is based on monitoring. All monitoring requirements for equipment
leaks are specified in Sec. 63.1363.
(e) Monitoring for heat exchanger systems. The standard for heat
exchanger systems is based on monitoring. All monitoring requirements
for heat exchanger systems are specified in Sec. 63.1362(f).
(f) Monitoring for the pollution prevention alternative standard.
The owner or operator of an affected source that chooses to comply with
the requirements of Sec. 63.1362(g) (2) or (3) shall calculate annual
rolling average values of the HAP and VOC factors in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. If
complying with Sec. 63.1362(g)(3), the owner or operator shall also
comply with the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of
this section for the applicable add-on air pollution control device.
(1) Annual factors. The annual HAP and VOC factors shall be
calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraphs
(f)(1) (i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The consumption of both total HAP and total VOC shall be
divided by the production rate, per process, for 12-month periods at
the frequency specified in either paragraph (f)(1) (ii) or (iii) of
this section, as applicable.
(ii) For continuous processes, the annual factors shall be
calculated every 30 days for the 12-month period preceding the 30th day
(annual rolling
[[Page 33626]]
average calculated every 30 days). A process with both batch and
continuous operations is considered a continuous process for the
purposes of this section.
(iii) For batch processes, the annual factors shall be calculated
every 10 batches for the 12-month period preceding the 10th batch
(annual rolling average calculated every 10 batches). Additional annual
factors shall be calculated every 12 months during the period before
the 10th batch if more than 12 months elapse before the 10th batch is
produced.
(2) Violations. Each rolling average that exceeds the target value
established in Sec. 63.1365(g)(3) is considered a violation of the
emission limit.
(g) Monitoring for emissions averaging. The owner or operator of an
affected source that chooses to comply with the requirements of
Sec. 63.1362(h) shall meet all monitoring requirements specified in
paragraph (b) of this section, as applicable, for all processes,
storage tanks, and waste management units included in the emissions
average.
Sec. 63.1367 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Requirements of subpart A of this part. The owner or operator
of an affected source shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements
in subpart A of this part as specified in Table 1 of this subpart and
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Data retention. Each owner or operator of an affected source
shall keep copies of all records and reports required by this subpart
for at least 5 years, as specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1) of subpart A of
this part.
(2) Records of applicability determinations. The owner or operator
of a stationary source that is not subject to this subpart shall keep a
record of the applicability determination, as specified in
Sec. 63.10(b)(3) of subpart A of this part.
(3) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The owner or operator
of an affected source shall develop and implement a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of
subpart A of this part. This plan shall describe, in detail, procedures
for operating and maintaining the affected source during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a program for corrective action
for a malfunctioning process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment used to comply with this subpart. The owner or operator of an
affected source shall keep the current and superseded versions of this
plan onsite, as specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(v) of subpart A of this
part. The owner or operator shall keep the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction records specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii) of
this section. Reports related to the plan shall be submitted as
specified in Sec. 63.1368(i).
(i) The owner or operator shall record the occurrence and duration
of each malfunction of air pollution control equipment used to comply
with this subpart, as specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) of subpart A of
this part.
(ii) The owner or operator shall record the occurrence and duration
of each malfunction of continuous monitoring systems used to comply
with this subpart.
(iii) For each startup, shutdown, or malfunction, the owner or
operator shall record all information necessary to demonstrate that the
procedures specified in the affected source's startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan were followed, as specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) of
subpart A of this part; alternatively, the owner or operator shall
record any actions taken that are not consistent with the plan, as
specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iv) of subpart A of this part.
(4) Recordkeeping requirements for sources with continuous
monitoring systems. The owner or operator of an affected source who
installs a continuous monitoring system to comply with the alternative
standards in Sec. 63.1362(b)(6) or (c)(4) shall maintain records
specified in Sec. 63.10(c)(1) through (14) of subpart A of this part.
(5) Application for approval of construction or reconstruction. For
new affected sources, each owner or operator shall comply with the
provisions regarding construction and reconstruction in Sec. 63.5 of
subpart A of this part.
(b) Records of equipment operation. The owner or operator must keep
the following records up-to-date and readily accessible:
(1) Each measurement of a control device operating parameter
monitored in accordance with Sec. 63.1366 and each measurement of a
treatment process parameter monitored in accordance with the provisions
of Sec. 63.1362(d).
(2) For processes subject to Sec. 63.1362(g), records of
consumption, production, and the rolling average values of the HAP and
VOC factors.
(3) For each continuous monitoring system used to comply with the
alternative standards in Sec. 63.1362(b)(6) and (c)(4), records
documenting the completion of calibration checks and maintenance of the
continuous monitoring systems.
(4) For processes in compliance with the 0.15 Mg/yr emission limit
of Sec. 63.1362(b)(2)(i) or (b)(4)(i), records of the rolling annual
calculations of uncontrolled emissions.
(5) For each bag leak detector used to monitor particulate HAP
emissions from a fabric filter, the owner or operator shall maintain
records of any bag leak detection alarm, including the date and time,
with a brief explanation of the cause of the alarm and the corrective
action taken.
(6) The owner or operator of an affected source that complies with
the standards for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater systems
shall maintain up-to-date, readily accessible records of the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (vii) of this
section to document that HAP emissions or HAP loadings (for wastewater)
are below the limits specified in Sec. 63.1362:
(i) The initial calculations of uncontrolled and controlled
emissions of gaseous organic HAP and HCl per batch for each process.
(ii) The wastewater concentrations and flow rates per POD and
process.
(iii) The number of batches per year for each batch process.
(iv) The operating hours per year for continuous processes.
(v) The number of batches and the number of operating hours for
processes that contain both batch and continuous operations.
(vi) The number of tank turnovers per year, if used in an emissions
average or for determining applicability of a new PAI process unit.
(vii) A description of absolute or hypothetical peak-case operating
conditions as determined using the procedures in Sec. 63.1365(b)(11).
(viii) Periods of planned routine maintenance as described in
Sec. 63.1362(c)(5).
(7) Daily schedule or log of each operating scenario prior to its
operation.
(c) Records of equipment leak detection and repair. The owner or
operator of an affected source subject to the equipment leak standards
in Sec. 63.1363 shall implement the recordkeeping requirements
specified in Sec. 63.1363(g). All records shall be retained for a
period of 5 years, in accordance with the requirements of
Sec. 63.10(b)(1) of subpart A of this part.
(d) Records of emissions averaging. The owner or operator of an
affected source that chooses to comply with the requirements of
Sec. 63.1362(h) shall maintain up-to-date records of the following
information:
(1) An Emissions Averaging Plan which shall include in the plan,
for all emission points included in each of the emissions averages, the
information listed in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
[[Page 33627]]
(i) The identification of all emission points in each emissions
average.
(ii) The values of all parameters needed for input to the emission
debits and credits equations in Sec. 63.1365(h).
(iii) The calculations used to obtain the debits and credits.
(iv) The estimated values for all parameters required to be
monitored under Sec. 63.1366(g) for each emission point included in an
average. These parameter values, or as appropriate, limited ranges for
parameter values, shall be specified as enforceable operating
conditions for the operation of the process, storage vessel, or waste
management unit, as appropriate. Changes to the parameters must be
reported as required by Sec. 63.1368(k).
(v) A statement that the compliance demonstration, monitoring,
inspection, recordkeeping and reporting provisions in Sec. 63.1365(h),
Sec. 63.1366(g), and Sec. 63.1368(k) that are applicable to each
emission point in the emissions average will be implemented beginning
on the date of compliance.
(2) The Emissions Averaging Plan shall demonstrate that the
emissions from the emission points proposed to be included in the
average will not result in greater hazard or, at the option of the
operating permit authority, greater risk to human health or the
environment than if the emission points were controlled according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.1362(b) through (d).
(i) This demonstration of hazard or risk equivalency shall be made
to the satisfaction of the operating permit authority.
(A) The Administrator may require an owner or operator to use
specific methodologies and procedures for making a hazard or risk
determination.
(B) The demonstration and approval of hazard or risk equivalency
shall be made according to any guidance that the Administrator makes
available for use or any other technically sound information or
methods.
(ii) An Emissions Averaging Plan that does not demonstrate hazard
or risk equivalency to the satisfaction of the Administrator shall not
be approved. The Administrator may require such adjustments to the
Emissions Averaging Plan as are necessary in order to ensure that the
average will not result in greater hazard or risk to human health or
the environment than would result if the emission points were
controlled according to Sec. 63.1362(b) through (d).
(iii) A hazard or risk equivalency demonstration must satisfy the
requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) (A) through (C) of
this section.
(A) Be a quantitative, comparative chemical hazard or risk
assessment;
(B) Account for differences between averaging and nonaveraging
options in chemical hazard or risk to human health or the environment;
and
(C) Meet any requirements set by the Administrator for such
demonstrations.
(3) Records as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(4) A calculation of the debits and credits as specified in
Sec. 63.1365(h) for the last quarter and the prior four quarters.
(e) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to the
requirements for heat exchanger systems in Sec. 63.1362(g) shall retain
the records as specified in Sec. 63.104(f)(1)(i) through (iv) of
subpart G of this part.
(f) For each vapor collection system or closed-vent system that
contains bypass lines that could divert a vent stream away from the
control device and to the atmosphere, the owner or operator shall keep
a record of the information specified in either paragraph (f) (1) or
(2) of this section.
(1) Hourly records of whether the flow indicator specified under
Sec. 63.1362(j)(1) was operating and whether a diversion was detected
at any time during the hour, as well as records of the times and
durations of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the
control device or the flow indicator is not operating.
(2) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with
Sec. 63.1362(j)(2), hourly records of flow are not required. In such
cases, the owner or operator shall record that the monthly visual
inspection of the seals or closure mechanism has been done, and shall
record the occurrence of all periods when the seal mechanism is broken,
the bypass line valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-
key type lock has been checked out, and records of any car-seal that
has broken.
(g) Records of primary use. For a PAI process unit that is used to
produce a given material for use as a PAI as well as for other
purposes, the owner or operator shall keep records of the total
production and the production for use as a PAI on a semiannual or more
frequent basis if the use as a PAI is not the primary use.
Sec. 63.1368 Reporting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with
the reporting requirements of paragraphs (b) through (l) of this
section. The owner or operator shall also comply with applicable
paragraphs of Secs. 63.9 and 63.10 of subpart A of this part, as
specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
(b) Initial notification. The owner or operator shall submit the
applicable initial notification in accordance with Sec. 63.9(b) or (d)
of subpart A of this part.
(c) Application for approval of construction or reconstruction. The
owner or operator who is subject to Sec. 63.5(b)(3) of subpart A of
this part shall submit to the Administrator an application for approval
of the construc-tion of a new major source, the reconstruction of a
major affected source, or the reconstruction of a major affected source
subject to the standards. The application shall be prepared in
accordance with Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A of this part.
(d) Notification of continuous monitoring system performance
evaluation. An owner or operator who is required by the Administrator
to conduct a performance evaluation for a continuous monitoring system
that is used to comply with the alternative standard in
Sec. 63.1362(b)(6) or (c)(4) shall notify the Administrator of the date
of the performance evaluation as specified in Sec. 63.8(e)(2) of
subpart A of this part.
(e) Precompliance plan. The Precompliance plan shall be submitted
at least 6 months prior to the compliance date of the standard. For new
sources, the Precompliance plan shall be submitted to the Administrator
with the application for approval of construction or reconstruction.
The Administrator shall have 90 days to approve or disapprove the
Precompliance plan. The Precompliance plan shall be considered approved
if the Administrator either approves it in writing, or fails to
disapprove it in writing within the 90-day time period. The 90-day
period shall begin when the Administrator receives the Precompliance
plan. If the Precompliance plan is disapproved, the owner or operator
must still be in compliance with the standard by the compliance date.
To change any of the information submitted in the Precompliance plan,
the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator at least 90 days
before the planned change is to be implemented; the change shall be
considered approved if the Administrator either approves the change in
writing, or fails to disapprove the change in writing within 90 days of
receipt of the change. The Precompliance plan shall include the
information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Requests for approval to use alternative monitoring parameters
or requests to set monitoring parameters according to
Sec. 63.1366(b)(4).
(2) Descriptions of the daily or per batch demonstrations to verify
that control devices subject to
[[Page 33628]]
Sec. 63.1366(b)(1)(i) are operating as designed.
(3) Data and rationale used to support the parametric monitoring
level(s) that are set according to Sec. 63.1366(b)(3)(ii)(B).
(4) For owners and operators complying with the requirements of
Sec. 63.1362(i), the pollution prevention demonstration summary
required in Sec. 63.1365(g)(3).
(5) Data and rationale used to support an engineering assessment to
calculate uncontrolled emissions from process vents as required in
Sec. 63.1365(c)(2)(ii).
(6) For fabric filters that are monitored with bag leak detectors,
an operation and maintenance plan that describes proper operation and
maintenance procedures, and a corrective action plan that describes
corrective actions to be taken, and the timing of those actions, when
the particulate matter concentration exceeds the setpoint and activates
the alarm.
(f) Notification of compliance status report. The Notification of
Compliance Status report required under Sec. 63.9(h) shall be submitted
no later than 150 calendar days after the compliance date and shall
include the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (7) of
this section.
(1) The results of any applicability determinations, emission
calculations, or analyses used to identify and quantify HAP emissions
from the affected source.
(2) The results of emissions profiles, performance tests,
engineering analyses, design evaluations, or calculations used to
demonstrate compliance. For performance tests, results should include
descriptions of sampling and analysis procedures and quality assurance
procedures.
(3) Descriptions of monitoring devices, monitoring frequencies, and
the values of monitored parameters established during the initial
compliance determinations, including data and calculations to support
the levels established.
(4) Operating scenarios.
(5) Descriptions of absolute or hypothetical peak-case operating
and/or testing conditions for control devices.
(6) Identification of emission points subject to overlapping
requirements described in Sec. 63.1360(h) and the authority under which
the owner or operator will comply, and identification of emission
sources discharging to devices described by Sec. 63.1362(l).
(7) Anticipated periods of planned routine maintenance during which
the owner or operator would not be in compliance with the provisions in
Sec. 63.1362(c)(1) through (4).
(8) Percentage of total production from a PAI process unit that is
anticipated to be produced for use as a PAI in the 3 years after either
June 23, 1999 or startup, whichever is later.
(g) Periodic reports. The owner or operator shall prepare Periodic
reports in accordance with paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section
and submit them to the Administrator.
(1) Submittal schedule. Except as provided in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)
and (ii) of this section, the owner or operator shall submit Periodic
reports semiannually, beginning 60 operating days after the end of the
applicable reporting period. The first report shall be submitted no
later than 240 days after the date the Notification of Compliance
Status report is due and shall cover the 6-month period beginning on
the date the Notification of Compliance Status report is due.
(i) The Administrator may determine on a case-by-case basis that
more frequent reporting is necessary to accurately assess the
compliance status of the affected source.
(ii) Quarterly reports shall be submitted when the monitoring data
are used to comply with the alternative standards in Sec. 63.1362(b)(6)
or (c)(4) and the source experiences excess emissions. Once an affected
source reports excess emissions, the affected source shall follow a
quarterly reporting format until a request to reduce reporting
frequency is approved. If an owner or operator submits a request to
reduce the frequency of reporting, the provisions in Sec. 63.10(e)(3)
(ii) and (iii) of subpart A of this part shall apply, except that the
term ``excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance
report and/or summary report'' shall mean ``Periodic report'' for the
purposes of this section.
(2) Content of periodic report. The owner or operator shall include
the information in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section,
as applicable.
(i) Each Periodic report must include the information in
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi)(A) through (M) of subpart A of this part, as
applicable.
(ii) If the total duration of excess emissions, parameter
exceedances, or excursions for the reporting period is 1 percent or
greater of the total operating time for the reporting period, or the
total continuous monitoring system downtime for the reporting period is
5 percent or greater of the total operating time for the reporting
period, the Periodic report must include the information in paragraphs
(g)(2)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Monitoring data, including 15-minute monitoring values as well
as daily average values of monitored parameters, for all operating days
when the average values were outside the ranges established in the
Notification of Compliance Status report or operating permit.
(B) Duration of excursions, as defined in Sec. 63.1366(b)(7).
(C) Operating logs and operating scenarios for all operating days
when the values are outside the levels established in the Notification
of Compliance Status report or operating permit.
(D) When a continuous monitoring system is used, the information
required in Sec. 63.10(c)(5) through (13) of subpart A of this part.
(iii) For each vapor collection system or closed vent system with a
bypass line subject to Sec. 63.1362(j)(1), records required under
Sec. 63.1366(f) of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from
the control device through a bypass line. For each vapor collection
system or closed vent system with a bypass line subject to
Sec. 63.1362(j)(2), records required under Sec. 63.1366(f) of all
periods in which the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass valve
position has changed, or the key to unlock the bypass line valve was
checked out.
(iv) The information in paragraphs (g)(2)(iv)(A) through (D) of
this section shall be stated in the Periodic report, when applicable.
(A) No excess emissions.
(B) No exceedances of a parameter.
(C) No excursions.
(D) No continuous monitoring system has been inoperative, out of
control, repaired, or adjusted.
(v) For each storage vessel subject to control requirements:
(A) Actual periods of planned routine maintenance during the
reporting period in which the control device does not meet the
specifications of Sec. 63.1362(c)(5); and
(B) Anticipated periods of planned routine maintenance for the next
reporting period.
(vi) For each PAI process unit that does not meet the definition of
primary use, the percentage of the production in the reporting period
produced for use as a PAI.
(viii) Updates to the corrective action plan.
(h) Notification of process change. (1) Except as specified in
paragraph (h)(2) of this section, whenever a process change is made, or
any of the information submitted in the Notification of Compliance
Status report changes, the owner or operator shall
[[Page 33629]]
submit a report quarterly. The report may be submitted as part of the
next Periodic report required under paragraph (g) of this section. The
report shall include:
(i) A brief description of the process change;
(ii) A description of any modifications to standard procedures or
quality assurance procedures;
(iii) Revisions to any of the information reported in the original
Notification of Compliance Status report under paragraph (f) of this
section; and
(iv) Information required by the Notification of Compliance Status
report under paragraph (f) of this section for changes involving the
addition of processes or equipment.
(2) The owner or operator must submit a report 60 days before the
scheduled implementation date of either of the following:
(i) Any change in the activity covered by the Precompliance report.
(ii) A change in the status of a control device from small to
large.
(i) Reports of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. For the purposes
of this subpart, the startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports shall
be submitted on the same schedule as the Periodic reports required
under paragraph (g) of this section instead of the schedule specified
in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i) of subpart A of this part. These reports shall
include the information specified in Sec. 63.1367(a)(3)(i) through
(iii) and shall contain the name, title, and signature of the owner or
operator or other responsible official who is certifying its accuracy.
Reports are only required if a startup, shutdown, or malfunction
occurred during the reporting period. Any time an owner or operator
takes an action that is not consistent with the procedures specified in
the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the
owner or operator shall submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report as specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of subpart A of
this part.
(j) Reports of equipment leaks. The owner or operator of an
affected source subject to the standards in Sec. 63.1363, shall
implement the reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.1363(h).
Copies of all reports shall be retained as records for a period of 5
years, in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.10(b)(1) of
subpart A of this part.
(k) Reports of emissions averaging. The owner or operator of an
affected source that chooses to comply with the requirements of
Sec. 63.1362(h) shall submit all information as specified in
Sec. 63.1367(d) for all emission points included in the emissions
average. The owner or operator shall also submit to the Administrator
all information specified in paragraph (g) of this section for each
emission point included in the emissions average.
(1) The reports shall also include the information listed in
paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section:
(i) Any changes to the processes, storage tanks, or waste
management unit included in the average.
(ii) The calculation of the debits and credits for the reporting
period.
(iii) Changes to the Emissions Averaging Plan which affect the
calculation methodology of uncontrolled or controlled emissions or the
hazard or risk equivalency determination.
(iv) Any changes to the parameters monitored according to
Sec. 63.1366(g).
(2) Every second semiannual or fourth quarterly report, as
appropriate, shall include the results according to Sec. 63.1367(d)(4)
to demonstrate the emissions averaging provisions of Sec. 63.1362(h),
Sec. 63.1365(h), Sec. 63.1366(g), and Sec. 63.1367(d) are satisfied.
(l) Reports of heat exchange systems. The owner or operator of an
affected source subject to the requirements for heat exchange systems
in Sec. 63.1362(f) shall submit information about any delay of repairs
as specified in Sec. 63.104(f)(2) of subpart F of this part, except
that when the phrase ``periodic reports required by Sec. 63.152(c) of
subpart G of this part'' is referred to in Sec. 63.104(f)(2) of subpart
F of this part, the periodic reports required in paragraph (g) of this
section shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(m) Notification of performance test and test Plan. The owner or
operator of an affected source shall notify the Administrator of the
planned date of a performance test at least 60 days before the test in
accordance with Sec. 63.7(b) of subpart A of this part. The owner or
operator also must submit the test Plan required by Sec. 63.7(c) of
subpart A of this part and the emission profile required by
Sec. 63.1365(b)(10)(ii) with the notification of the performance test.
(n) Request for extension of compliance. The owner or operator may
submit to the Administrator a request for an extension of compliance in
accordance with Sec. 63.1364(a)(2).
(o) The owner or operator who submits an operating permit
application before the date the Emissions Averaging Plan is due shall
submit the information specified in paragraphs (o)(1) through (3) of
this section with the operating permit application instead of the
Emissions Averaging Plan.
(1) The information specified in Sec. 63.1367(d) for emission
points included in the emissions average;
(2) The information specified in Sec. 63.9(h) of subpart A of this
part, as applicable; and
(3) The information specified in paragraph (e) of this section, as
applicable.
Sec. 63.1369 Delegation of authority.
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under section 112(d) of the CAA, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator
and not transferred to a State.
(b) The authority conferred in Sec. 63.177 of subpart H of this
part, the authority to approve applications for determination of
equivalent means of emission limitation, and the authority to approve
alternative test methods shall not be delegated to any State.
Table 1 to Subpart MMM of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart MMM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference to subpart A Applies to subpart MMM Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1).................... Yes..................... Additional terms are defined in Sec. 63.1361.
Sec. 63.1(a)(2)-(3)................ Yes
Sec. 63.1(a)(4).................... Yes..................... Subpart MMM (this table) specifies applicability
of each paragraph in subpart A to subpart MMM.
Sec. 63.1(a)(5).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)-(7)................ Yes
Sec. 63.1(a)(8).................... No...................... Discusses State programs.
Sec. 63.1(a)(9).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(14).............. Yes
[[Page 33630]]
Sec. 63.1(b)(1).................... No...................... Sec. 63.1360 specifies applicability.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)-(3)................ Yes
Sec. 63.1(c)(1).................... Yes..................... Subpart MMM (this table) specifies the
applicability of each paragraph in subpart A to
sources subject to subpart MMM.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2).................... No...................... Area sources are not subject to subpart MMM.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)-(5)................ Yes
Sec. 63.1(d)....................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(e)....................... Yes
Sec. 63.2.......................... Yes..................... Additional terms are defined in Sec. 63.1361;
when overlap between subparts A and MMM occurs,
subpart MMM takes precedence.
Sec. 63.3.......................... Yes..................... Other units used in subpart MMM are defined in
that subpart.
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(3)................ Yes
Sec. 63.4(a)(4).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.4(a)(5)-(c)................ Yes
Sec. 63.5(a)....................... Yes..................... Except the term ``affected source'' shall apply
instead of the terms ``source'' and
``stationary source'' in Sec. 63.5(a)(1) of
subpart A.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1).................... Yes
Sec. 63.5(b)(2).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(5)................ Yes
Sec. 63.5(b)(6).................... No...................... Sec. 63.1360(g) specifies requirements for
determining applicability of added PAI
equipment.
Sec. 63.5(c)....................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.5(d)-(e)................... Yes
Sec. 63.5(f)(1).................... Yes..................... Except ``affected source'' shall apply instead
of ``source'' in Sec. 63.5(f)(1) of subpart A.
Sec. 63.5(f)(2).................... Yes
Sec. 63.6(a)....................... Yes
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(2)................ No...................... Sec. 63.1364 specifies compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(b)(3)-(4)................ Yes
Sec. 63.6(b)(5).................... Yes.....................
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).................... Yes
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)................ Yes..................... Except ``affected source'' shall apply instead
of ``source'' in Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2) of
subpart A.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)................ N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).................... Yes
Sec. 63.6(d)....................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(e)....................... Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1360 specifies that the
standards in subpart MMM apply during startup
and shutdown for batch processes; therefore,
these activities would not be covered in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction Plan.
Sec. 63.6(f)....................... Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1360 specifies that the
standards in subpart MMM also apply during
startup and shutdown for batch processes.
Sec. 63.6(g)....................... Yes..................... An alternative standard has been proposed;
however, affected sources will have the
opportunity to demonstrate other alternatives
to the Administrator.
Sec. 63.6(h)....................... No...................... Subpart MMM does not contain any opacity or
visible emissions standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1).................... Yes
Sec. 63.6(i)(2).................... Yes..................... Except ``affected source'' shall apply instead
of ``source'' in Sec. 63.6(i)(2)(i) and (ii)
of subpart A.
Sec. 63.6(i)(3)-(14)............... Yes
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)................... Yes
Sec. 63.6(j)....................... Yes
Sec. 63.7(a)(1).................... Yes
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(i)-(vi)............ Yes..................... Sec. 63.1368 specifies that test results must
be submitted in the Notification of Compliance
Status due 150 days after the compliance date.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(vii)-(viii)........ N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix)-(c)............ Yes
Sec. 63.7(d)....................... Yes..................... Except ``affected source'' shall apply instead
of ``source'' in Sec. 63.7(d) of subpart A.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................... Yes..................... Sec. 63.1365 contains test methods specific to
PAI sources.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2).................... Yes
Sec. 63.7(e)(3).................... Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1365 specifies less than 3 runs
for certain tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(4).................... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(f)....................... Yes
Sec. 63.7(g)(1).................... Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1368(a) specifies that the
results of the performance test be submitted
with the Notification of Compliance Status
report
Sec. 63.7(g)(2).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.7(g)(3).................... Yes
Sec. 63.7(h)....................... Yes
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2)................ Yes
[[Page 33631]]
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................... Yes
Sec. 63.8(b)(1).................... Yes
Sec. 63.8(b)(2).................... No...................... Sec. 63.1366 specifies CMS requirements.
Sec. 63.8(b)(3)-(c)(3)............. Yes..................... Except the submittal date of the immediate
startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports for
CMS events shall be 2 days as in Sec.
63.6(e)(3)(iv).
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................... No...................... Sec. 63.1366 specifies monitoring frequencies.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)-(8)................ No
Sec. 63.8(d)-(f)(3)................ Yes
Sec. 63.8(f)(4).................... Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1368(b) specifies that requests
may also be included in the Precompliance
report.
Sec. 63.8(f)(5).................... Yes
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................... No...................... Subpart MMM does not require CEM's.
Sec. 63.8(g)....................... No...................... Sec. 63.1366 specifies data reduction
procedures.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(d)................... Yes
Sec. 63.9(e)....................... No
Sec. 63.9(f)....................... No...................... Subpart MMM does not contain opacity and visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)....................... No
Sec. 63.9(h)(1).................... Yes
Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i)................. Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.1368(a)(1) specifies additional
information to include in the Notification of
Compliance Status report.
Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii)................ No...................... Sec. 63.1368 specifies the Notification of
Compliance Status report is to be submitted
within 150 days after the compliance date.
Sec. 63.9(h)(3).................... Yes
Sec. 63.9(h)(4).................... N/A..................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(6)................ Yes
Sec. 63.9(i)-(j)................... Yes..................... Except Sec. 63.9(j) does not apply for changes
in information in the notification of
compliance status report on equipment leaks as
specified in Sec. 63.1363(h)(2).
Sec. 63.10(a)-(b)(1)............... Yes
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)................... No...................... Sec. 63.1367 specifies recordkeeping
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3).................. Yes
Sec. 63.10(c)...................... Yes
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................... Yes
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................... Yes
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................... No...................... Subpart MMM does not include opacity and visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................... Yes
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................... Yes..................... Except that actions and reporting for batch
processes do not apply during startup and
shutdown.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)(i)............ Yes
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(ii)............... No...................... Subpart MMM does not include opacity monitoring
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................... Yes
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................... No...................... Subpart MMM does not include opacity monitoring
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(f)...................... Yes
Sec. 63.11-Sec. 63.15............. Yes.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart MMM of Part 63--Standards for New and Existing PAI
Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission source Applicability Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process vents............. Existing:
Processes having 90% for organic HAP
uncontrolled organic per process or to
HAP emissions 0.15 Mg/yr. of 20
ppmv TOC.
Processes having 94% for HCl and
uncontrolled HCl and chlorine per process
chlorine emissions or to outlet HCl and
6.8 Mg/yr. chlorine
concentration of 20 ppmv.
Individual process 98% gaseous organic
vents meeting flow HAP control per vent
and mass emissions or 20
criteria that have ppmv TOC outlet
gaseous organic HAP limit.
emissions controlled
to less than 90% on
or after November
10, 1997.
New:
Processes having 98% for organic HAP
uncontrolled organic per process or 20 ppmv TOC.
thn-eq>0.15 Mg/yr.
Processes having 94% for HCl and
uncontrolled HCl and chlorine per process
chlorine emissions or to outlet
6.8 Mg/yr concentration of 20 ppmv HCl
and chlorine.
Processes having 99% for HCl and
uncontrolled HCl and chlorine per process
chlorine emissions or to outlet
191 Mg/yr. concentration of 20 ppmv HCl
and chlorine.
Storage vessels........... Existing: 75 m\3\ capacity roof, reduce HAP by
and vapor pressure 95% per vessel, or
3.45 kPa. to outlet
concentration of 20 ppmv TOC.
New: 38 Same as for existing
m\3\ capacity and sources.
vapor pressure 16.5 kPa.
75 m\3\ Same as for existing
capacity and vapor sources.
pressure 3.45 kPa.
[[Page 33632]]
Wastewater a.............. Existing: Process Reduce concentration
wastewater with 10,000 ppmw compounds to <50
Table 9 compounds at ppmw (or other
any flowrate or 1,000 ppmw
Table 9 compounds at
10 L/min,
and maintenance
wastewater with HAP
load 5.3
Mg per discharge
event.
New:
Same criteria as Reduce concentration
for existing sources. of total Table 9
compounds to <50
ppmw (or other
options).
Total HAP load in 99% reduction of
wastewater POD Table 9 compounds
streams 2,100 Mg/yr..
Equipment leaks........... Subpart H............ Subpart H with minor
changes, including
monitoring
frequencies
consistent with the
proposed CAR.
Product dryers and bag Dryers used to dry Particulate matter
dumps. PAI that is also a concentration not to
HAP, and bag dumps exceed 0.01 gr/dscf.
used to introduce
feedstock that is a
solid and a HAP.
Heat exchange systems..... Each heat exchange Monitoring and leak
system used to cool repair program as in
process equipment in HON.
PAI manufacturing
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Table 9 is listed in the appendix to subpart G of 40 CFR part 63.
Table 3 to Subpart MMM of Part 63--Monitoring Requirements for Control Devices a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring equipment Parameters to be
Control device required monitored Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All control devices.............. 1. Flow indicator 1. Presence of flow Hourly records of
installed at all bypass diverted from the whether the flow
lines to the atmosphere control device to the indicator was operating
and equipped with atmosphere or. and whether a diversion
continuous recorder or. was detected at any
time during each hour.
2. Valves sealed closed 2. Monthly inspections Monthly.
with car-seal or lock- of sealed valves.
and-key configuration.
Scrubber......................... Liquid flow rate or 1. Liquid flow rate into 1. Every 15 minutes.
pressure drop mounting or out of the scrubber
device. Also a pH or the pressure drop
monitor if the scrubber across the scrubber..
is used to control acid
emissions..
2. pH of effluent 2. Once a day.
scrubber liquid.
Thermal incinerator.............. Temperature monitoring Firebox temperature..... Every 15 minutes.
device installed in
firebox or in ductwork
immediately downstream
of firebox b.
Catalytic incinerator............ Temperature monitoring Temperature difference Every 15 minutes.
device installed in gas across catalyst bed.
stream immediately
before and after
catalyst bed.
Flare............................ Heat sensing device Presence of a flame at Every 15 minutes.
installed at the pilot the pilot light.
light.
Boiler or process heater <44 Temperature monitoring Combustion temperature.. Every 15 minutes.
megawatts and vent stream is not device installed in
mixed with the primary fuel. firebox b.
Condenser........................ Temperature monitoring Condenser exit (product Every 15 minutes.
device installed at side) temperature.
condenser exit.
Carbon adsorber (nonregenerative) None..................... Operating time since N/A.
last replacement.
Carbon adsorber (regenerative)... Stream flow monitoring 1. Total regeneration 1. For each regeneration
device, and. stream mass or cycle, record the total
volumetric flow during regeneration stream
carbon bed regeneration mass or volumetric
cycle(s). flow.
Carbon bed temperature 2. Temperature of carbon 2. For each regeneration
monitoring device. bed after regeneration. cycle, record the
maximum carbon bed-
temperature.
3. Temperature of carbon 3. Within 15 minutes of
bed within 15 minutes completing any cooling
of completing any cycle, record the
cooling cycle(s). carbon bed temperature.
4. Operating time since 4. Operating time to be
end of last based on worst-case
regeneration. conditions.
5. Check for bed 5. Yearly.
poisoning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a As an alternative to the monitoring requirements specified in this table, the owner or operator may use a CEM
meeting the requirements of Performance Specifications 8 or 9 of appendix B of part 60 to monitor TOC every 15
minutes.
b Monitor may be installed in the firebox or in the ductwork immediately downstream of the firebox before any
substantial heat exchange is encountered.
[[Page 33633]]
Table 4 to Subpart MMM of Part 63--Control Requirements for Items of
Equipment That Meet the Criteria of Sec. 63.1362(k)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item of equipment Control requirement a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drain or drain hub............. (a) Tightly fitting solid cover (TFSC);
or
(b) TFSC with a vent to either a
process, or to a control device
meeting the requirements of Sec.
63.1256(h)(2); or
(c) Water seal with submerged discharge
or barrier to protect discharge from
wind.
Manhole b...................... (a) TFSC; or
(b) TFSC with a vent to either a
process, or to a fuel gas system, or
to a control device meeting the
requirements of Sec. 63.1256(h)(2);
or
(c) If the item is vented to the
atmosphere, use a TFSC with a properly
operating water seal at the entrance
or exit to the item to restrict
ventilation in the collection system.
The vent pipe shall be at least 90 cm
in length and not exceeding 10.2 cm in
nominal inside diameter.
Lift station................... (a) TFSC; or
(b) TFSC with a vent to either a
process, or to a control device
meeting the requirements of Sec.
63.1256(h)(2); or
(c) If the lift station is vented to
the atmosphere, use a TFSC with a
properly operating water seal at the
entrance or exit to the item to
restrict ventilation in the collection
system. The vent pipe shall be at
least 90 cm in length and not
exceeding 10.2 cm in nominal inside
diameter. The lift station shall be
level controlled to minimize changes
in the liquid level.
Trench......................... (a) TFSC; or
(b) TFSC with a vent to either a
process, or to a control device
meeting the requirements of Sec.
63.1256(h)(2); or
(c) If the item is vented to the
atmosphere, use a TFSC with a properly
operating water seal at the entrance
or exit to the item to restrict
ventilation in the collection system.
The vent pipe shall be at least 90 cm
in length and not exceeding 10.2 cm in
nominal inside diameter.
Pipe........................... Each pipe shall have no visible gaps in
joints, seals, or other emission
interfaces.
Oil/Water separator............ (a) Equip with a fixed roof and route
vapors to a process, or equip with a
closed-vent system that routes vapors
to a control device meeting the
requirements of Sec. 63.1256(h)(2);
or
(b) Equip with a floating roof that
meets the equipment specifications of
Sec. 60.693 (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii),
(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4).
Tank........................... Maintain a fixed roof.c If the tank is
sparged d or used for heating or
treating by means of an exothermic
reaction, a fixed roof and a system
shall be maintained that routes the
organic hazardous air pollutants
vapors to other process equipment or a
fuel gas system, or a closed-vent
system that routes vapors to a control
device that meets the requirements of
40 CFR Sec. 63.119(e)(1) or (e)(2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Where a tightly fitting solid cover is required, it shall be
maintained with no visible gaps or openings, except during periods of
sampling, inspection, or maintenance.
b Manhole includes sumps and other points of access to a conveyance
system.
c A fixed roof may have openings necessary for proper venting of the
tank, such as pressure/vacuum vent, j-pipe vent.
d The liquid in the tank is agitated by injecting compressed air or gas.
[FR Doc. 99-12754 Filed 6-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P