[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