[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 167 (Monday, August 28, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52166-52210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-21073]
[[Page 52165]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cellulose
Products Manufacturing; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 167 / Monday, August 28, 2000 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 52166]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-6853-6]
RIN 2060-AH11
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Cellulose Products Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for cellulose products manufacturing. Cellulose
products manufacturing includes both the Viscose Processes source
category and the Cellulose Ethers source category. The Viscose
Processes source category comprises the cellulose food casing, rayon,
cellophane, and cellulosic sponge industries. The Cellulose Ethers
source category comprises the methyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methyl
cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, and
carboxymethyl cellulose industries. The EPA has identified the Viscose
Processes source category and the Cellulose Ethers source category as
including major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions,
such as carbon disulfide (CS2), carbonyl sulfide (COS),
ethylene oxide, methanol, methyl chloride, propylene oxide, and
toluene. These proposed standards will implement section 112(d) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission
standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). The proposed standards will reduce HAP emissions by
approximately 4,060 tons per year (ton/yr). In addition, the proposed
standards will reduce hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions by
approximately 1,490 ton/yr.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before October 27, 2000.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a
public hearing by September 18, 2000, a public hearing will be held on
September 27, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate
if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(6102), Attention Docket Number A-99-39, Room M-1500, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Anenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. We request a separate copy also be sent to the
contact person listed below in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
10:00 a.m. on September 27, 2000 in our Office of Administration
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate
site nearby.
Docket. Docket No. A-99-39 contains supporting information used in
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be
inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed rule,
contact Mr. William Schrock; Organic Chemicals Group; Emission
Standards Division (MD-13); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; (919) 541-5032;
[email protected]. For questions about the public hearing, contact
Ms. Maria Noell; Organic Chemicals Group; Emission Standards Division
(MD-13); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; (919) 541-5673; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special
characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks
in WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket
number: A-99-39. No confidential business information (CBI) should be
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. William Schrock; c/o
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B); U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; 411 W. Chapel Hill Street; Durham, NC 27701. We will
disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by
the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies a submission when we receive it, the
information may be made available to the public without further notice
to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms.
Maria Noell at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons
interested in attending such a public hearing must also contact Ms.
Noell to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The
address, telephone number, and e-mail address for Ms. Noell are listed
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If a public
hearing is held, it will provide interested parties the opportunity to
present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission
standards.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information considered by us in the development of this rulemaking. The
docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the
rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members
of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking
process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their
preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the
case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The
regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are
available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request
from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket materials.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the rule will be posted on the
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at
(919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include those listed in the following table.
[[Page 52167]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category SIC NAICS regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................... 3089 326199 cellulose food
casing
operations.
cellophane
operations.
cellulosic sponge
operations.
2821 325211 cellulosic sponge
operations.
2823 325221 rayon
2819 325188 operations.
2869 325199 cellulose ether
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your process operation is regulated by
this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in
Sec. 63.5481 of the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What is the history of the source categories?
D. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants
emitted from cellulose products manufacturing operations?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What source categories and subcategories are affected by this
proposed rule?
B. What are the primary sources of HAP emissions and what are the
emissions?
C. What is the affected source?
D. What are the emission limits, operating limits and other
standards?
E. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
F. What are the continuous compliance provisions?
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How did we select the source categories?
B. How did we select any subcategories?
C. How did we select the affected source?
D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed
standards for the Viscose Processes source category?
E. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed
standards for the Cellulose Ethers source category?
F. How did we select the form of the standards?
G. How did we select the alternative standards?
H. How did we select the standards for the Viscose Processes source
category?
I. How did we select the standards for the Cellulose Ethers source
category?
J. How did we select the testing and initial compliance
requirements?
K. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
L. How did we select the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?
M. What is the relationship of this rule to other rules?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et. Seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
I. Background
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
The CAA was enacted, 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 * * *'' (section
101(b)(1) of the CAA). Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list
categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP
and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and
subcategories. The categories of major sources covered by today's
proposed NESHAP were listed on the following dates: Cellulose Food
Casings, Rayon, Cellophane, Methyl Cellulose, Carboxymethyl Cellulose,
and Cellulose Ethers--July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576); and Cellulosic
Sponges--November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63026). Major sources of HAP are
those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 ton/yr of any one
HAP or 25 ton/yr of any combination of HAP.
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as the MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
C. What is the history of the source categories?
1. Listing the Initial Source Categories
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish emission standards
for categories of stationary sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992,
we published an initial list of source categories to be regulated (57
FR 31576). Today's proposed rule groups the various cellulose products
manufacturing industries included in the initial list with another
industry recently added to the list and combines them to create two new
source categories.
The initial source category list included separate source
categories for various cellulose products manufacturing industries.
These source categories are Cellulose Food Casings, Rayon, Cellophane,
Methyl Cellulose, Carboxymethyl Cellulose, and Cellulose Ethers. The
Cellulose Ethers source
[[Page 52168]]
category on the initial list included the hydroxyethyl cellulose,
hydroxypropyl cellulose, and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose industries.
2. Adding Another Source Category
In developing this proposed rule, we identified another cellulose
products manufacturing industry, cellulosic sponge manufacturing, that
was not on the initial source category list. Based on information we
obtained while gathering data for this proposed rule, we determined
that the production of cellulosic sponges is similar to the production
of some of the other cellulose products (cellulose food casings, rayon,
and cellophane). We found similarities in raw materials, process
operations, emission characteristics, and control device applicability.
We added Cellulosic Sponges to the source category list under section
112(c) of the CAA on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63026).
3. Reducing to Two Source Categories
In developing the proposed rule, we decided to combine the various
cellulose products manufacturing source categories on the initial
source category list with the Cellulosic Sponge source category that
was listed November 18, 1999. Then we split out the Cellulose Food
Casing, Rayon, Cellophane, and Cellulosic Sponge manufacturing
industries and combined them to create a new source category named
``Viscose Processes.'' We split out the various cellulose ether
industries (Methyl Cellulose, Carboxymethyl Cellulose, and Cellulose
Ethers) and combined them to create a new source category named
``Cellulose Ethers.''
Within each new source category (Viscose Processes and Cellulose
Ethers), we found similarities in raw materials, process operations,
emission characteristics, and control device applicability. Based on
these factors, we concluded that separate MACT standards were not
warranted for each of the individual cellulose products source
categories on the source category list.
Instead, we believe that it is technically feasible to regulate
emissions from a variety of viscose process operations (or a variety of
cellulose ether operations) by a single set of standards. Similar to
the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI), we are proposing separate requirements
for process vents, storage vessels, equipment leaks, and wastewater HAP
emission points.
One set of standards for each of the two new source categories
would ensure that process equipment with comparable HAP emissions and
control technologies are subject to consistent emission control
requirements. In addition, some of the cellulose ether operations are
collocated within individual plants. Plants with collocated cellulose
ether manufacturing operations could more easily comply with one set of
standards than with individual standards for each of the collocated
process operations.
D. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants emitted
from cellulose products manufacturing operations?
Today's proposed rule protects air quality and promotes the public
health by reducing emissions of some of the HAP listed in section
112(b)(1) of the CAA. Available emission data, collected as we
developed this proposed rule, show that CS2, COS, and
toluene are the HAP emitted in the greatest quantities from viscose
process operations. Ethylene oxide, methanol, methyl chloride, and
propylene oxide are the HAP emitted in the greatest quantities from
cellulose ether operations. Exposure to these HAP has been demonstrated
to cause adverse health effects.
This section describes the adverse health effects associated with
the exposure to these specific HAP. The adverse health effects
resulting from exposure to HAP can range from mild to severe. The
severity of health effects resulting from HAP exposure depends on: (1)
Concentrations of HAP in the area; (2) the amount of time a person is
exposed; and (3) characteristics of exposed individuals (such as
genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle) which
vary significantly among the population. Exposure is also influenced by
source-specific characteristics (such as emission rates and local
meteorological conditions), as well as pollutant-specific
characteristics.
The HAP that this proposed rule would control are associated with a
variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects include
chronic health disorders (such as effects on the central nervous and
reproductive systems) and acute health disorders (such as irritation of
eyes, throat, and mucous membranes and narcotic effects). Three of the
HAP have been classified as probable or possible human carcinogens. In
general, these findings have only been shown with concentrations higher
than those typically found in the ambient air.
We do not have the kind of current, detailed data on the operations
covered by today's proposed rule (and the people living around the
operations) that are necessary to determine the actual population
exposures to the HAP emitted from these operations and the potential
for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to
which the adverse health effects described above occur in the
populations surrounding these operations. However, to the extent the
adverse effects do occur, this proposed rule will reduce emissions and
subsequent exposures.
1. Health Effects Associated with HAP Emitted from Viscose Process
Operations
Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure of humans to CS2
has caused changes in breathing and chest pains. Nausea, vomiting,
dizziness, fatigue, headache, mood changes, lethargy, blurred vision,
delirium, and convulsions have also been reported in humans acutely
exposed by inhalation. Neurologic effects, including behavioral and
neurophysiological changes, have been observed in chronic (long-term)
human and animal inhalation studies. Reproductive effects, such as
decreased sperm count and menstrual disturbances, have been observed in
humans exposed to CS2 by inhalation. Developmental effects,
including birth defects, toxicity to the embryo, and functional and
behavioral disturbances, have been observed in animal studies. We have
not classified CS2 with respect to potential human
carcinogenicity.
Acute (short-term) inhalation of high concentrations of COS may
cause narcotic effects in humans. Carbonyl sulfide may also irritate
the eyes and skin in humans. No information is available on the chronic
(long-term), reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects of
COS in humans. We have not classified COS with respect to potential
human carcinogenicity.
Acute (short-term) inhalation of toluene by humans may cause
effects to the central nervous system (CNS), such as fatigue,
sleepiness, headache, and nausea, as well as irregular heartbeat.
Adverse CNS effects have been reported in chronic abusers exposed to
high levels of toluene. Symptoms include tremors, decreased brain size,
involuntary eye movements, and impaired speech, hearing, and vision.
Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure of humans to lower levels of
toluene also causes irritation of the upper respiratory tract, eye
irritation, sore throat, nausea, dizziness, headaches, and difficulty
with sleep. Studies of
[[Page 52169]]
children of pregnant women exposed by inhalation to toluene or to mixed
solvents have reported CNS problems, facial and limb abnormalities, and
delayed development. However, these effects may not be attributable to
toluene alone.
2. Health Effects Associated with HAP Emitted from Cellulose Ether
Operations
The acute (short-term) effects of ethylene oxide in humans consist
mainly of CNS depression and irritation of the eyes and mucous
membranes. High concentrations of ethylene oxide produce weakness,
nausea, bronchitis, pulmonary edema, emphysema, and death. Chronic
(long-term) exposure to ethylene oxide in humans can cause irritation
of the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes, and adversely affect the
functioning of the brain and nerves. Limited evidence from animal and
human studies indicates that inhalation exposure to ethylene oxide may
result in adverse reproductive effects, such as an increased rate of
miscarriages. Some limited human cancer data suggest an increase in the
incidence of leukemia, stomach cancer, cancer of the pancreas, and
Hodgkin's disease in workers exposed to ethylene oxide. Ethylene oxide
has been shown to cause lung, gland, and uterine tumors in laboratory
animals. We have classified ethylene oxide as a Group B1 (probable)
human carcinogen.
Acute (short-term) or chronic (long-term) exposure of humans to
methanol by inhalation or ingestion may result in blurred vision,
headache, dizziness, and nausea. No information is available on the
reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects of methanol in
humans. Birth defects have been observed in the offspring of rats and
mice exposed to methanol by inhalation. A methanol inhalation study
using rhesus monkeys reported a decrease in the length of pregnancy and
limited evidence of impaired learning ability in offspring. We have not
classified methanol with respect to potential human carcinogenicity.
Acute (short-term) exposure to high concentrations of methyl
chloride in humans causes severe neurological effects, including
convulsions, coma, and death. Methyl chloride also affects the heart
rate, blood pressure, liver, and kidney function in humans. No
information is available regarding chronic (long-term) systemic effects
of methyl chloride in humans, but animal studies have reported effects
to the liver, kidney, spleen, and CNS. No information is available
concerning developmental or reproductive effects of methyl chloride in
humans. Inhalation studies have demonstrated that methyl chloride
causes reproductive effects in male rats, with effects such as
testicular lesions and decreased sperm production. We have classified
methyl chloride as a Group C (possible) human carcinogen on the basis
of limited human data and animal studies that have reported kidney
tumors in male mice.
Acute (short-term) exposure of workers to propylene oxide may cause
CNS effects, such as headache, weakness, loss of coordination, and
coma. Propylene oxide also irritates the eyes and respiratory tract,
causing coughing and difficulty in breathing, possibly leading to
pulmonary edema and pneumonia. Health effects from chronic propylene
oxide exposure in humans have not been reported. Chronic (long-term)
animal studies have reported neurological disorders and inflammatory
lesions of the nasal cavity, trachea, and lungs. We have classified
propylene oxide as a Group B2 (probable) human carcinogen on the basis
of nasal tumors observed in rodents exposed by inhalation.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What source categories and subcategories are affected by this
proposed rule?
Today's proposed rule applies to the Viscose Processes source
category and the Cellulose Ethers source category. There are no
subcategories.
B. What are the primary sources of HAP emissions and what are the
emissions?
The primary sources of HAP emissions at cellulose products
manufacturing operations are process vents, storage vessels, equipment
leaks, and wastewater systems. Total baseline HAP emissions for all
cellulose products manufacturing operations at the current level of
control are 20,700 ton/yr. Baseline emissions from process vents
account for most of the emissions, or approximately 92 percent of the
total. Baseline emissions from wastewater, equipment leaks, and storage
vessels account for approximately 4 percent, 3 percent, and 1 percent
of the total, respectively.
C. What is the affected source?
The affected source for the Viscose Processes source category is
the sum of all operations engaged in the production of cellulose food
casing, rayon, cellophane, or cellulosic sponge. The affected source
for the Cellulose Ethers source category is the sum of all operations
engaged in the production of cellulose ethers.
D. What are the emission limits, operating limits and work practice
standards?
As provided under the authority of CAA section 112(h), we are
proposing the requirements of this rule in the form of emission limits
(such as mass rate, percent reduction, and concentration emission
limits), operating limits, and work practice standards. Work practice
standards include design, equipment, work practices, and operational
standards.
In establishing HAP emission limits for viscose process affected
sources, we selected total sulfide emissions as a surrogate for HAP
emissions of CS2 and COS. We are defining total sulfide
emissions as the sum of all CS2, COS, and H2S
emissions (reported as CS2). (Emissions of H2S
are included because they are generated from by-products of the
CS2 reactions in the viscose process operation.) We are
requiring owners and operators of cellulose food casing, rayon,
cellophane, and cellulosic sponge operations at both new and existing
viscose process affected sources to reduce the total sulfide emissions
from their process vents by a specified percentage, which is unique to
the type of viscose process operation.
We are requiring owners and operators of any of the three types of
cellulose ether operations at both new and existing cellulose ether
affected sources to reduce the total HAP emissions from their process
vents by 99 percent. The HAP included in total HAP vary for each
cellulose ether operation, depending on the cellulose ether product
being manufactured.
We are requiring owners and operators of cellulose food casing,
rayon, cellophane, and cellulosic sponge operations at both new and
existing viscose process affected sources to control the CS2
emissions from their CS2 unloading and storage operations by
complying with one of the following options: (1) Reducing
CS2 emissions by at least 83 percent using any compliance
method, or (2) installing a nitrogen system for CS2
unloading and storage, or (3) obtaining an equivalent emission
reduction from elsewhere in the viscose process (such as process
vents).
We are requiring owners and operators of cellulose ether operations
at both new and existing cellulose ether affected sources to reduce the
HAP emissions from their wastewater by complying with the applicable
process wastewater provisions in subpart G of 40 CFR part 63.
We are requiring owners and operators of cellulose ether operations
at both new and existing cellulose ether
[[Page 52170]]
affected sources to reduce the HAP emissions from equipment leaks by
complying with the equipment leak provisions in subpart H of 40 CFR
part 63. We are considering allowing owners or operators that can
demonstrate that they are below a certain number of leaks an
alternative to complying with the equipment leak provisions in subpart
H; that is, they may comply with the equipment leak provisions in the
proposed subpart F of 40 CFR part 65 (65 FR 57837, October 28, 1998)
after it becomes final and we evaluate its requirements.
It is generally not cost effective for owners and operators of
these affected sources to continuously test the emission control
devices to ensure continuous compliance with the emission standards.
Therefore, for the most likely control devices to be used, this
proposed rule specifies operating parameters that can be monitored to
demonstrate continuous compliance. This proposed rule also specifies
operating limits for these parameters. We have established operating
limits for carbon adsorbers, thermal oxidizers, condensers, biofilters,
oil absorbers, wet scrubbers, and flares.
Owners and operators of affected sources that use a control device
other than those listed in this proposed rule may establish operating
limits for the appropriate operating parameters subject to prior
written approval from the Administrator. The owners and operators must
submit for approval a proposed site-specific monitoring plan that
includes a description of the alternative control device, test results
verifying the performance of the control device, the appropriate
operating parameters that will be monitored, and the frequency of
measuring and recording to establish continuous compliance with the
operating limits. The owners and operators of the affected sources must
install, operate, and maintain the parameter monitoring system for the
alternative control device in accordance with the monitoring plan
approved by the Administrator. The owners and operators will also
establish operating limits during the initial performance test based on
the operating parameters for the alternative control device included in
the approved monitoring plan.
Owners and operators of affected sources that use a control device
listed in this proposed rule may establish operating limits for
alternative operating parameters subject to prior written approval by
the Administrator. The owner and operators must submit the application
for approval of alternative operating parameters no later than the
notification of the performance test. The application must include
information justifying the request for alternative operating parameters
(such as the infeasibility or impracticality of using the operating
parameters in this proposed rule), a description of the proposed
alternative control device operating parameters, the monitoring
approach, the frequency of measuring and recording the alternative
parameters, the averaging period for the operating limits, how the
operating limits are to be calculated, and information documenting that
the alternative operating parameters would provide equivalent or better
assurance of compliance with the relevant emission limit. The owners
and operators of the affected sources must install, operate, and
maintain the alternative parameter monitoring systems in accordance
with the application approved by the Administrator. The owners and
operators will establish operating limits during the initial
performance test based on the alternative operating parameters included
in the approved application.
E. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
conduct an initial performance test using specified EPA test methods to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for process
vents. The owner or operator would test at the inlet and outlet to the
control device and at the stack(s) for the process operation and, using
these results, calculate a percent reduction of emissions.
We are also requiring owners and operators of all viscose process
affected sources to prepare a material balance that documents HAP usage
and HAP emissions at the affected source. The material balance would be
based on HAP emissions information from the initial performance test
and HAP usage information from records at the affected source.
Prior to the initial performance test, owners and operators of
affected sources are required to install the parameter monitoring
equipment to be used to demonstrate compliance with the operating
limits. During the initial test, the owners or operators would use the
parameter monitoring equipment to establish operating parameter limits.
We are requiring owners and operators of cellulose food casing,
rayon, cellophane, and cellulosic sponge operations at new and existing
viscose process affected sources to demonstrate initial compliance with
the emission limits and work practice standards for CS2
unloading and storage operations by: (1) Documenting an 85 percent
reduction in emissions from CS2 unloading and storage
operations; or (2) certifying that a nitrogen system is being used in
CS2 unloading and storage operations to prevent emissions;
or (3) complying with the initial compliance requirements for process
vents at viscose process affected sources, such that the total emission
reductions from process vents equals the required emission reductions
from both process vents and CS2 unloading and storage
operations.
We are requiring owners and operators of cellulose ether operations
at new and existing cellulose ether affected sources to comply with the
initial compliance provisions for process wastewater in subpart G of 40
CFR part 63.
We are requiring owners and operators of cellulose ether operations
at new and existing cellulose ether affected sources to comply with the
initial compliance provisions for equipment leaks in subpart H of 40
CFR part 63.
F. What are the continuous compliance provisions?
We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
monitor and record the operating parameters established during the
initial performance test and calculate average operating parameter
values averaged over the period of time specified in this proposed rule
to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits.
We are also requiring owners and operators of all viscose process
affected sources to maintain the material balance documenting HAP usage
and HAP emissions that they established as part of their initial
compliance requirements. The owners and operators would use the HAP
usage and HAP emissions information from the material balance to
calculate the percent reduction in emissions and demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits.
We are requiring owners and operators of cellulose food casing,
rayon, cellophane, and cellulosic sponge operations at new and existing
viscose process affected sources to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the emission limits and work practice standards for CS2
unloading and storage operations by: (1) Keeping a record documenting
the 85 percent reduction in emissions; or (2) keeping a record
certifying that a nitrogen system is being used; or (3) complying with
the continuous compliance requirements for process vents at viscose
process affected
[[Page 52171]]
sources, such that the total emission reductions from process vents
equals the required emission reductions from both process vents and
CS2 unloading and storage operations.
We are requiring owners and operators of cellulose ether operations
at new and existing cellulose ether affected sources to comply with the
continuous compliance provisions for process wastewater in subpart G of
40 CFR part 63.
We are requiring the owners and operators of cellulose ether
operations at new and existing cellulose ether affected sources to
comply with the continuous compliance provisions for equipment leaks in
subpart H of 40 CFR part 63.
G. What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?
We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
submit initial notifications, notifications of performance tests, and
notifications of compliance status by the specified dates in the
proposed rule, which may vary depending on whether the affected source
is new or existing.
We are also requiring owners and operators of all affected sources
to submit semiannual compliance reports. In addition, if an owner or
operator undertakes action that is inconsistent with their approved
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan, then we are requiring
that they submit SSM reports within 2 days of starting such action and
within 7 days of ending such action.
We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
keep a copy of each notification and report, along with supporting
documentation. Owners and operators of all affected sources also must
keep records related to SSM, records of performance tests, and records
for each continuous parameter monitoring system. Owners and operators
of those viscose process affected sources that comply with the work
practice standard for CS2 unloading and storage operations
requiring installation of a nitrogen system must keep records
certifying that a nitrogen system is being used. Owners and operators
of all viscose process affected sources must keep records of all
material balances and calculations documenting the percent reduction in
HAP emissions.
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How did we select the source categories?
Today's proposed rule applies to the Viscose Processes source
category and the Cellulose Ethers source category. We are creating
these two source categories by combining seven existing source
categories based on the differences between the categories and the
similarities within each category with regard to raw materials, process
operations, emission characteristics, and control device applicability.
1. Raw Materials
Both viscose process operations and cellulose ether operations use
cellulose and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) as raw materials to produce
alkali cellulose. However, after the production of alkali cellulose,
the viscose process operations and cellulose ether operations add
different chemicals to the process. All of the viscose process
operations use primarily CS2, while the cellulose ether
operations use a variety of chemicals (such as propylene oxide,
ethylene oxide, chloroacetic acid, and methyl chloride), depending upon
the type of cellulose ether being produced. Some of the cellulose ether
operations use the same chemicals. For example, both the methyl
cellulose and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose operations use methyl
chloride, and both the hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl
cellulose operations use propylene oxide.
2. Process Operations
Although both operations produce alkali cellulose, the viscose
process operations and cellulose ether operations are completely
different in terms of the process steps and equipment used. For
example, all of the viscose process operations include the following
process steps: (1) production of alkali cellulose from cellulose and
NaOH, (2) production of sodium cellulose xanthate from alkali cellulose
and CS2 (xanthation), (3) production of viscose from sodium
cellulose xanthate and NaOH solution, (4) regeneration of liquid
viscose into solid cellulose, and (5) washing of the solid cellulose
product.
The cellulose ether operations include mostly different process
steps, as follows: (1) production of alkali cellulose from cellulose
and NaOH, (2) reaction of the alkali cellulose with organic chemical(s)
to produce a cellulose ether product, (3) washing and purification of
the cellulose ether product, and (4) drying of the cellulose ether
product.
3. Emission Characteristics
Viscose process operations emit primarily CS2, whereas
cellulose ether operations do not use or emit CS2. Emissions
from cellulose ether operations include ethylene oxide, methanol,
methyl chloride, and propylene oxide. The type of emissions depends
upon the type of cellulose ether produced. Some of the cellulose ether
operations have the same type of emissions; for example, the methyl
cellulose, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, and carboxymethyl cellulose
operations all emit methanol as a by-product of the reaction.
4. Control Device Applicability
All of the viscose process operations are subject to a permissible
exposure limit (PEL) for CS2 from the U.S. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that requires owners or
operators to reduce worker exposure to CS2 inside the
buildings. The viscose process operations have been able to reduce
worker exposure to CS2 by increasing gas flow rates (thereby
reducing CS2 concentrations) and enclosing some processes.
As a result, viscose process operations have lower HAP concentrations
and higher gas flow rates compared to cellulose ether operations.
Because the viscose process operations and cellulose ether
operations are different in terms of the type and concentration of HAP
emitted as well as the gas flow rate, the types of control devices that
are applicable to the viscose process operations and cellulose ether
operations are also different. Cellulose ether operations are better
able to apply certain types of control devices, such as condensers,
that require high-concentration, low-flow gas streams to operate
effectively. Control devices that are effective on low-concentration,
high-flow gas streams, such as biofilters and carbon adsorbers, are the
most viable options for reducing CS2 emissions from the
viscose process operations.
Some control devices that cellulose ether operations have
effectively employed on their organic HAP emissions cannot be as easily
employed by viscose process operations on their CS2
emissions. For example, while wet scrubbers are effective control
devices for cellulose ether operations, available data show them to
have little effect on CS2 emissions at viscose process
operations. Also, viscose process operations have special concerns
regarding the flammability of CS2 that cellulose ether
operations do not have to consider in selecting a control device.
B. How did we select any subcategories?
1. Viscose Process Industry
We reviewed the available information on the viscose process
[[Page 52172]]
industry and determined that the various viscose process operations
should not be subcategorized. We found that viscose process operations
are generally similar with respect to types of raw materials,
emissions, initial process steps, and control device applicability.
We are establishing a single set of standards across the Viscose
Processes source category in those areas (such as CS2
unloading and storage, wastewater emissions, and equipment leaks) where
we have found important similarities between the various viscose
process operations. For example, most viscose process operations use
nitrogen or water displacement to unload the liquid CS2 from
the railcar in order to control CS2 emissions during
unloading, and they use nitrogen or water padding in the head space of
the CS2 storage vessels in order to control CS2
emissions from the vessels.
Other similarities between the various viscose process operations
include how they address wastewater emissions and equipment leaks. None
of the viscose process operations take any measures to control the
CS2 emissions from their wastewater, and none of the viscose
process operations are subject to Federal or State leak detection and
repair (LDAR) requirements to control the CS2 emissions from
their equipment leaks.
However, we are establishing separate limits for the various
viscose process operations (cellulose food casing, rayon, cellophane,
and cellulosic sponge) in those areas (such as process vents) where we
have found important differences between the various viscose
operations. We found some differences between the various viscose
process operations with respect to final process steps and final
products. For example, some viscose process operations use different
methods and equipment to complete the regeneration step. Cellulose food
casing operations extrude viscose through a die, forming a tube, while
rayon operations extrude viscose through spinnerets, forming thin
strands. Cellophane operations extrude viscose through a long slit,
forming a flat sheet, while cellulosic sponge operations feed a mixture
of viscose and Glauber's salt into a sponge mold. Also, cellulose food
casing, rayon, and cellophane operations use a hot acid solution in
their regeneration step, while cellulosic sponge operations use either
a hot salt solution or electricity.
The various viscose process operations produce a variety of
products, such as cellulose food casings, rayon, cellophane, and
cellulosic sponges, all of which compete in different economic markets.
None of the viscose process operations produces more than one of these
products. For example, a cellulose food casing operation does not also
produce rayon or cellophane.
2. Cellulose Ether Industry
We reviewed the available information on the cellulose ether
industry and determined that the Cellulose Ethers source category
should not be subcategorized. We found that the various cellulose ether
operations are sufficiently similar with respect to their process steps
and control device applicability to justify keeping the various
operations in one category. Therefore, we are establishing a single set
of standards across the Cellulose Ethers source category.
C. How did we select the affected source?
In selecting the affected source for the Viscose Processes source
category and the Cellulose Ethers source category, we included all
equipment that emits HAP, such as process vents, storage vessels,
wastewater treatment processes, and other components (such as pumps,
valves, flanges, sampling connections, compressors, and pressure relief
devices). In addition, because ``reconstruction,'' as defined in
Sec. 63.2 of subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, is calculated based on the
affected source, we also included other auxiliary equipment that is
necessary to make the operation run but which may not emit HAP.
We are defining the affected source broadly to include the sum of
all operations engaged in the production of the cellulose product (that
is, cellulose food casing, rayon, cellophane, cellulosic sponge, or
cellulose ethers). We defined the affected source broadly because
emissions from the sum of all operations are better documented than
emissions from individual process lines or emission points. In
addition, by defining the affected source broadly, it is less likely
that a change will trigger new source MACT. New source MACT would be
triggered when the fixed capital cost of new components exceeds 50
percent of the fixed capital cost for all components that would be
required to construct a comparable new affected source. Because
emissions averaging takes place within the affected source, a broadly
defined affected source would provide owners and operators with more
flexibility in conducting any emissions averaging.
D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards
for the Viscose Processes source category?
The following sections present the basis for determining the
components of the MACT floor for equipment leaks, wastewater emissions,
CS2 unloading and storage operations, and process vents for
the Viscose Processes source category. The MACT floor for the category
is the sum of the MACT floor components for each type of emission point
present at a given affected source. The Viscose Processes source
category has fewer than 30 process operations from which to establish
existing source MACT floors for these emission points. If there are
fewer than 30 sources in a category, the CAA states that the MACT floor
for existing affected sources must be determined based on the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing five sources.
We have previously interpreted the ``average'' emission limitation
as either the mean or median emission limitation. Where we had at least
five process operations in a group of similar operations to establish a
MACT floor (that is, equipment leaks, wastewater emissions, and
CS2 unloading and storage operations), we used the median
emission limitation to establish the MACT floor because it corresponds
to the control level for an actual control technology. Where we had
fewer than five operations in a group of similar operations to
establish a MACT floor (that is, process vents), we used another
approach, which is discussed below.
For new affected sources, the CAA states that the MACT floor must
be determined based on the emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing similar source. In each case, we used this approach to
determine the new source MACT floor.
1. MACT Floor for Equipment Leaks and Wastewater Emissions
Because none of the ten viscose process operations control
CS2 emissions from equipment leaks or wastewater, the MACT
floor for those emission points is no control.
2. MACT Floor for CS2 Unloading and Storage Operations
Most of the ten viscose process operations have taken steps to
control CS2 emissions from unloading and storage operations
by using nitrogen or water displacement to unload the liquid
CS2 from the railcar and using nitrogen or water padding in
the head space of the storage vessels. All of these CS2
control techniques reduce liquid CS2 contact with air.
However, the water
[[Page 52173]]
unloading and padding systems result in CS2-contaminated
water being sent to wastewater treatment, thereby generating gaseous
CS2 emissions from wastewater. We have determined that using
nitrogen unloading and storage systems reduces CS2 emissions
by at least 85 percent relative to the water unloading and storage
systems.
The MACT floor for CS2 unloading and storage operations
at existing affected sources is the median CS2 emission
reduction achieved by the top five viscose process operations. The
median viscose process operation has a nitrogen system for both
unloading and storage. Therefore, we established the MACT floor for
CS2 unloading and storage operations at 85 percent
CS2 control, which is the calculated control efficiency for
nitrogen systems relative to water systems. Because the best-controlled
viscose process operation also has a nitrogen system for CS2
unloading and storage operations, the MACT floor is the same for both
new and existing affected sources.
3. MACT Floors for Process Vents
a. Methodology. We determined separate components of the viscose
process operation MACT floor for each type of process vent used in a
viscose process operation (that is, one MACT floor for cellulose food
casing, one for rayon, one for cellophane, and one for cellulosic
sponge). There are only three viscose process operations that include
cellulose food casing process operations, two that include rayon
process operations, one that includes cellophane process operation, and
four that include cellulosic sponge process operations from which to
establish the various process vent components of the MACT floor for
viscose process operations. The CAA does not clearly address how to
establish the MACT floor for existing affected sources when there are
fewer than five process operations to determine the average emission
limitation.
For the various viscose process operations (cellulose food casing,
rayon, cellophane, and cellulosic sponge), we decided to use the MACT
floor approach outlined in the preamble to the proposal for the Generic
MACT NESHAP (63 FR 55178, October 14, 1998). According to the preamble
to the Generic MACT NESHAP, the smaller the group of similar process
operations, the less likely it is that the best control strategies have
been implemented for the process operations in that group. Averaging
the emission limitations from uncontrolled and well-controlled process
operations in a small group would result in a low average emission
limitation that is clearly below the emission limitation already
demonstrated by at least one process operation in that group. Selecting
the average emission limitation also could result in a control level
with no corresponding control technology. Selecting the median process
operation of the group, which would be uncontrolled, would also have
little relevance to the determination of MACT.
As an alternative, the proposal preamble to the Generic MACT NESHAP
outlined two basic scenarios where EPA can reasonably infer that the
MACT floor requirements for small groups of similar process operations
have been satisfied:
First, when the EPA intends to select a MACT standard that
coincides with the level of control achieved by the best-controlled
[process operation(s)] in a [group of similar process operations],
it is self-evident that the MACT floor has been met, and it is
clearly a waste of EPA resources to undertake a separate
quantitative MACT floor analysis based, in part, on control levels
at the less well-controlled [process operations] * * *. Second, in
those instances where the EPA will base its MACT standard for a
small [group of similar process operations] (five or fewer [process
operations]) on MACT standards previously established for a larger
group of demonstrably similar [process operations] in other
categories, it is also reasonable to infer MACT floor compliance
without the need for a detailed new analysis.
The second scenario under which we would determine MACT floors
based on MACT standards previously established for a larger group of
similar process operations in other categories is not useful here. We
found the cellulose food casing, rayon, cellophane, and cellulosic
sponge process operations to be completely different from other
industrial process operations in terms of the type and concentration of
HAP emitted, gas flow rates, control device applicability, types of
emission points, and special concerns regarding the flammability of
CS2 that other industries do not have to consider.
Instead, we selected the first scenario under which we would
determine process vent MACT floors based on the emission limitation of
the best-performing process operation for each type of viscose process
operation (cellulose food casing, rayon, cellophane, and cellulosic
sponge). The substantial emissions from viscose process vents (18,900
ton/yr nationwide for ten process operations) demonstrate the need for
effective emission control for this emission point. In this case, the
emission point is represented by the collection of process vents at
each viscose process operation. For example, when we determined the
best-performing process operation for rayon process vents, we compared
the overall reductions in process vent HAP emissions at the two rayon
process operations, and the process operation with the higher overall
reduction in process vent HAP emissions was considered to be the best-
performing rayon process operation.
We also determined the process vent MACT floors for new affected
sources based on the best-performing source for each type of viscose
process operation. Consequently, the process vent MACT floors for
viscose process operations at existing affected sources are the same as
the process vent MACT floors for viscose process operations at new
affected sources.
b. MACT Floor for Cellophane Process Vents. Because there is only
one cellophane process operation, we established the MACT floor for the
cellophane production process vents based on the current emission
reductions achieved by that process operation. The process operation
currently achieves between 85 and 90 percent control of total
uncontrolled sulfide emissions (reported as CS2). The
process operation accomplishes these reductions by using a
CS2 recovery system. To take into account any variability,
we established the MACT floor for cellophane production process vents
at 85 percent control.
We also established the MACT floors for solvent coating process
vents and toluene storage vessels at cellophane process operations
based on the current emission reductions achieved by the cellophane
process operation. The process operation currently achieves between 95
and 100 percent control of uncontrolled toluene emissions from these
emission points. The process operation accomplishes these reductions by
venting emissions from solvent coating process vents and toluene
storage vessels to a solvent recovery system. To take into account any
variability, we established the MACT floor for solvent coating process
vents and toluene storage vessels at 95 percent control.
c. MACT Floor for Cellulose Food Casing Process Vents. Of the three
cellulose food casing process operations, we have determined that the
best-performing process operation achieves between 25 and 30 percent
control of total sulfide emissions (reported as CS2) from
process vents at the MACT floor. The process operation accomplishes
part of these sulfide emission reductions by using viscose process
changes to reduce the amount of CS2 added to the process.
The process
[[Page 52174]]
operation accomplishes the remaining sulfide emission reductions by
using caustic scrubbers to capture H2S emissions, which are
generated from by-products of the CS2 reactions in the
viscose process operation. To take into account any variability, we
established the MACT floor for cellulose food casing process vents at
25 percent control.
d. MACT Floor for Rayon Process Vents. Of the two rayon process
operations, we have determined that the best-performing process
operation achieves between 55 and 60 percent control of total sulfide
emissions reported as CS2. The process operation
accomplishes these reductions by using a new rayon spinning technology,
CS2 recovery operations (using condensers and oil
absorbers), and caustic scrubbers (to capture the H2S
generated from CS2). To take into account any variability,
we established the MACT floor for rayon process vents at 55 percent
control.
e. MACT Floor for Cellulosic Sponge Process Vents. Of the four
cellulosic sponge process operations, we have determined that the two
best-performing process operations achieve similar CS2
reductions from process vents, between 75 and 85 percent overall. One
of these two process operations reduces CS2 emissions by
using a biofilter to remove the CS2 emissions from its
sponge-making operations. The second process operation reduces
CS2 emissions by using a carbon adsorber to recover the
CS2 from the viscose production and regeneration operations
and by using a thermal oxidizer to destroy the CS2 and
H2S from the salt recovery operation. To take into account
any variability, we established the MACT floor for cellulosic sponge
process vents at the lower end of the range, that is, 75 percent
control.
4. Beyond-the-Floor Technology
The CAA states that MACT must be no less stringent than the MACT
floor. Therefore, we also evaluate options more stringent than the MACT
floor. When evaluating the more stringent options, we consider the
costs, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements that accompany the expected emission reductions.
a. Beyond-the-floor Technology for CS2 Unloading and
Storage Operations. We did not consider any beyond-the-floor
requirements for CS2 unloading and storage operations at new
or existing affected sources because no beyond-the-floor technologies
are available for that emission point.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Technology for Equipment Leaks and Wastewater
Emissions. We do not project any emission control beyond the MACT floor
for equipment leaks and wastewater emissions at new or existing
affected sources to be cost effective.
In order to control HAP emissions from equipment leaks, viscose
process operations would be required to implement an LDAR program
similar to the LDAR provisions in subpart H of 40 CFR part 63. However,
the baseline HAP emissions from equipment leaks at viscose process
operations account for less than 2 percent of total HAP emissions.
Therefore, we do not project that any reduction in HAP emissions from
equipment leaks would be worth the cost to implement the LDAR program.
In order to control HAP emissions from wastewater, viscose process
operations would be required to implement requirements similar to the
process wastewater provisions in subpart G of 40 CFR part 63. However,
the baseline HAP emissions from wastewater at viscose process
operations account for less than 5 percent of total HAP emissions.
Therefore, we do not project that any reduction in HAP emissions from
wastewater would be worth the cost to implement requirements similar to
those in subpart G.
c. Beyond-the-Floor Technology for Cellophane and Cellulosic Sponge
Process Vents. We did not consider any beyond-the-floor requirements
for cellophane process vents and cellulosic sponge process vents at new
or existing affected sources because no beyond-the-floor technologies
are available for those emission points.
d. Beyond-the-Floor Technology for Cellulose Food Casing Process
Vents. We are including beyond-the-floor requirements for process vents
in today's proposed rule for cellulose food casing operations at new
viscose process affected sources. The arguments supporting the beyond-
the-floor requirements are presented below.
None of the existing cellulose food casing operations has achieved
CS2 emission reductions from process vents significantly
greater than the MACT floor level, which is 25 percent control of total
sulfide emissions (reported as CS2). However, other viscose
process operations (such as, rayon and cellulosic sponge) have achieved
higher CS2 emission reductions using various CS2
control technologies (such as condensers, biofilters, and carbon
adsorbers). Because of similarities in process vents among the various
viscose process operations, we believe that cellulose food casing
operations are also capable of reducing the CS2 emissions
from their process vents.
We have reviewed information obtained from cellulose food casing
operations on CS2 concentrations and gas flow rates for
individual process machines. Based on this information, we found that
the emission streams from the stack at cellulose food casing operations
have relatively low CS2 concentrations and high air flows.
The stack CS2 concentrations are typically around 100 parts
per million (ppm), and the stack gas flow rates typically exceed 80,000
cubic feet per minute (cfm). We have determined that the cost to
control these streams at stack conditions would be excessive. However,
we also have determined that, if more concentrated emission streams
from further back in the cellulose food casing process are segregated
from the less concentrated emission streams and sent to a control
device, then CS2 control technologies could be applied to
the cellulose food casing operations more cost effectively.
Two of the four cellulosic sponge operations have achieved total
sulfide emission reductions of at least 75 percent for the sum of their
process vents by using either a carbon adsorber or a biofilter. We have
determined that applying one of these CS2 control
technologies (such as a carbon adsorber) to cellulose food casing
process vents at new viscose process affected sources to achieve 75
percent control would be cost effective, with minimal non-air quality
environmental and energy impacts. Therefore, we are including a beyond-
the-floor control requirement of 75 percent total sulfide control for
cellulose food casing process vents at new viscose process affected
sources in today's proposed rule.
The cost effectiveness of applying carbon adsorbers to the three
existing cellulose food casing process operations to achieve 75 percent
control ranges from $500 to $1,600 per ton of total sulfide (reported
as CS2). The incremental cost effectiveness between the MACT
floor requirement of 25 percent control and the beyond-the-floor
requirement of 75 percent control ranges from $500 to $700 per ton of
total sulfide (reported as CS2). The low incremental cost
effectiveness is based primarily on the larger emission reductions
achieved beyond the floor. The high capital costs for this control
technology ($3.9 to $5.8 million) and the economic status of the
industry are the primary factors in our rejecting beyond-the-floor
requirements for cellulose food casing operations at existing viscose
process affected sources. However, we project that capital costs and
cost effectiveness for this control technology will be lower for
cellulose food casing operations at new
[[Page 52175]]
viscose process affected sources. The costs for the existing affected
sources include retrofit costs which increased the capital costs by 50
percent. Retrofit costs will not be a factor for cellulose food casing
operations at new viscose process affected sources.
The non-air quality impacts and energy requirements for cellulose
food casing operations at new viscose process affected sources are
expected to be comparable to those determined for operations at
existing viscose process affected sources which are minimal. The energy
requirements for applying carbon adsorbers to the three existing
cellulose food casing operations range from 2,800 to 4,600 megawatt-
hours per year (MWh/yr), and the wastewater impacts range from 15 to 35
million gallons per year (gal/yr).
e. Beyond-the-Floor Technology for Rayon Process Vents. We are
including beyond-the-floor requirements for process vents in today's
proposed rule for rayon operations at new viscose process affected
sources. The arguments supporting the beyond-the-floor requirements are
presented below.
One of the rayon operations has indicated that an emission control
technology (fluidized-bed carbon adsorber) is available to increase
their CS2 emission reductions from 60 to 80 percent. This
emission control technology is similar to technology currently being
used at one of the cellulosic sponge process operations, which is
achieving CS2 emission reductions of 75 percent for the sum
of its process vents using a carbon adsorber. We have determined that
applying this CS2 control technology to rayon operations at
new viscose process affected sources will be cost effective, with
minimal non-air quality environmental and energy impacts. Therefore, we
are including a beyond-the-floor control requirement of 75 percent
total sulfide control for rayon process vents at new viscose process
affected sources in today's proposed rule.
The cost effectiveness of applying carbon adsorbers to the two
existing rayon process operations ranges from $600 to $1,300 per ton of
total sulfide (reported as CS2). The incremental cost
effectiveness between the MACT floor requirement of 55 percent control
and the beyond-the-floor requirement of 75 percent control ranges from
$500 to $1,300 per ton of total sulfide (reported as CS2).
The low incremental cost effectiveness is based primarily on the larger
emission reductions achieved beyond the floor. The high capital cost
for this control technology ($15.2 to $21.8 million) and the economic
status of the industry are the primary factors in our rejecting beyond-
the-floor requirements for rayon operations at existing viscose process
affected sources. However, we project that capital costs and cost
effectiveness for these control technologies will be lower for rayon
operations at new viscose process affected sources. The costs for the
existing affected sources include retrofit costs which increased the
capital costs by 50 percent. Retrofit costs will not be a factor for
rayon operations at new viscose process affected sources.
The non-air quality impacts and energy requirements for a rayon
operation at a new viscose process affected source are expected to be
comparable to those determined for operations at existing viscose
process affected sources which are minimal. The energy requirements for
applying carbon adsorbers to the two existing rayon operations range
from 7,600 to 20,000 MWh/yr, and the wastewater impacts range from 57
to 165 million gal/yr.
E. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards
for the Cellulose Ethers source category?
There are four cellulose ether plants that are major sources
subject to today's proposed rule. These four cellulose ether plants are
comprised of seven individual process operations. One cellulose ether
plant has three cellulose ether operations (hydroxyethyl cellulose,
hydroxypropyl cellulose, and carboxymethyl cellulose operations).
Another cellulose ether plant has two cellulose ether operations
(methyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose operations). A
third cellulose ether plant has a hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose
operation, and a fourth cellulose ether plant has a hydroxyethyl
cellulose operation.
We established the MACT floor for storage vessels, equipment leaks,
wastewater emissions, and process vents based on these seven cellulose
ether operations. Therefore, we used the MACT floor approach presented
in section I.B and determined the MACT floor for existing affected
sources based on the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing five cellulose ether operations. We established the MACT
floor using the median as the ``average'' emission limitation because
the median corresponds to the control level for an actual control
technology.
1. MACT Floor for Storage Vessels
Because none of the seven cellulose ether operations have
controlled storage vessels in the size range of those controlled under
other rules, the MACT floor for storage vessels at both new and
existing affected sources is no control.
2. MACT Floor for Equipment Leaks
Only two of the seven cellulose ether operations are currently
subject to any LDAR requirements. Therefore, the median control level
(that is, MACT floor) for equipment leaks for existing affected sources
is no control. The equipment leak provisions for one of the cellulose
ether operations are essentially the same as the equipment leak
provisions in subpart H of 40 CFR part 63, with some minor differences.
Therefore, for new affected sources, we established subpart H
provisions as the MACT floor for equipment leaks.
3. MACT Floor for Wastewater Emissions
Information is available on wastewater HAP emissions and wastewater
treatment for five of the seven cellulose ether operations. Methanol is
the only HAP in the wastewater for four of the five cellulose ether
operations, and isophorone is the only HAP for the fifth cellulose
ether operation. Five of those cellulose ether operations treat the
wastewater in either onsite or offsite biological treatment units.
The industry has reported that these biological treatment units
achieve methanol reductions ranging from 95 to 99 percent, but no data
are currently available to confirm these reductions. There are also no
data on any isophorone reductions; however, isophorone also may be
easily biodegraded. The process wastewater provisions in subpart G of
40 CFR part 63 require only a 31 percent reduction in methanol and a 60
percent reduction in isophorone from Group 1 wastewater streams. Even
in an open biological system (perhaps with an open collection system),
it should be possible to easily achieve these biodegradation levels.
Also, according to the analysis for the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON),
these two compounds would not readily volatilize from the wastewater
before they had a chance to be biodegraded.
Because the top five cellulose ether operations all treat
wastewater in a manner at least as stringent as the process wastewater
provisions in subpart G of 40 CFR part 63, we established those
provisions as the MACT floor for existing affected sources. We
established the MACT floor for new affected sources to be the same as
for existing affected sources because insufficient information is
available to confirm a specific control level better than the HON.
[[Page 52176]]
4. MACT Floor for Process Vents
Of the seven cellulose ether operations, five operations have
process vents. The remaining two cellulose ether operations have
closed-loop systems with no process vent HAP emissions. In our MACT
floor determination for process vents at cellulose ether operations, we
considered the five operations with process vents.
We established the MACT floor for process vents based on the median
emission limitation achieved by the five cellulose ether operations
with process vent HAP emissions. For those five cellulose ether
operations, the median control level (that is, MACT floor) is 99
percent for existing affected sources. This control level is
characteristic of incinerators, condensers, and scrubbers currently
used by these process operations to recover and control their HAP
emissions. The best-performing cellulose ether operation process vent
is also controlled to 99 percent; therefore, we established a MACT
floor of 99 percent for new affected sources. For cellulose ether
operations with closed-loop systems, the MACT floor is the emission
control achieved by use of a closed-loop system.
5. Beyond-the-Floor Technology
We evaluate options more stringent than the MACT floor by
considering the costs, non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements that accompany the expected emission
reductions.
a. Beyond-the-Floor Technology for Storage Vessels. We did not
consider any beyond-the-floor requirements for storage vessels at new
or existing affected sources because we do not project any emission
control beyond the MACT floor to be cost effective. In order to control
HAP emissions from storage vessels, cellulose ether operations would be
required to implement requirements similar to the storage vessel
provisions in subpart G of 40 CFR part 63. However, the baseline HAP
emissions from storage vessels at cellulose ether operations account
for less than 0.2 percent of total HAP emissions. Therefore, we do not
project that any reductions in HAP emissions from storage vessels would
be worth the cost to implement requirements similar to those in subpart
G.
b. Beyond-the-Floor Technology for Wastewater Emissions and Process
Vents. We did not consider any beyond-the-floor requirements for
wastewater emissions and process vents at new or existing affected
sources because no beyond-the-floor technologies are available for
those emission points.
c. Beyond-the-Floor Technology for Equipment Leaks. Two of the
seven cellulose ether operations are currently subject to LDAR
requirements for their equipment leaks. The equipment leak provisions
for one of the cellulose ether processes are essentially the same as
the equipment leak provisions in subpart H of 40 CFR part 63, with some
minor differences. Therefore, we considered subpart H provisions as
beyond-the-floor requirements for equipment leaks at existing cellulose
ether affected sources. We are including this beyond-the-floor
requirement for existing cellulose ether affected sources in today's
proposed rule based on the conclusion that the benefits of additional
control beyond the MACT floor justify the additional cost.
The cost effectiveness of implementing the equipment leak
provisions in subpart H of 40 CFR part 63 ranges from $400 to $600 per
ton of HAP for the five cellulose ether operations that do not
currently have LDAR programs. The capital and annual costs are also
low, with the capital costs ranging from $10,800 to $21,600, and the
annual costs ranging from $17,200 to $95,900. there are no non-air
quality impacts and energy requirements associated with these beyond-
the-floor requirements.
F. How did we select the form of the standards?
We evaluated the feasibility of the following forms of the
standards for the Viscose Processes source category and the Cellulose
Ethers source category: (1) emission limits (such as mass rate, percent
reduction, and concentration emission limits); and (2) work practice
standards (such as design, equipment, work practices, and operational
standards).
1. Standard Forms Selected
Based on the evaluations presented in the following section, we are
specifying a percent reduction emission limit for MACT standards for
viscose process vents, cellulose ether process vents, and toluene
storage vessels in today's proposed rule.
We are providing some flexibility for complying with the emission
limits and work practice standards for CS2 unloading and
storage operations. We are providing the owners and operators of
viscose process affected sources with three options for compliance. The
first compliance option (a percent reduction emission limit) specifies
that owners and operators may achieve an 83 percent reduction in
CS2 emissions from their CS2 unloading and
storage operations using any compliance method. The second compliance
option (an alternative equivalent equipment standard) specifies that
owners and operators may install a nitrogen system for their
CS2 unloading and storage operations. The third compliance
option (an alternative equivalent percent reduction emission limit)
specifies that owners and operators may achieve an equivalent emission
reduction from elsewhere in the viscose process.
The third compliance option provides flexibility to owners and
operators to control other emission points instead of the
CS2 unloading and storage operations, as long as they can
demonstrate that they have achieved an equivalent CS2
emission reduction. The equivalent of the 85 percent reduction in
CS2 emissions from the CS2 unloading and storage
operation is a 0.14 percent reduction in total sulfide emissions from
process vents. The 0.14 percent reduction in process vent emissions is
based on the percent reduction in storage vessel throughput to the
process when a water system is replaced with a nitrogen system for
CS2 unloading and storage.
We are specifying work practice standards for equipment leaks and
wastewater emissions at cellulose either affected sources. For
equipment leaks, owners and operators of new and existing cellulose
ether affected sources must comply with the LDAR work practice
standards in subpart H of 40 CFR part 63. Section 112(h) of the CAA
recognizes the need for alternative forms of the standard such as a
work practice standard. As described in the preamble to the HON (57 FR
62608), the use of a work practice standard for equipment leaks is
justified. We are also evaluating the LDAR work practice standards in
the proposed Consolidated Air Rule (if owners and operators can
demonstrate that they are below a certain number of leaks) and may
allow owners and operators the option of complying with those
provisions. For wastewater emissions, we are specifying emission limits
and work practice standards based on the process wastewater provisions
in subpart G of 40 CFR part 63.
2. Standard Forms Evaluated
The following sections present the evaluations used to determine
the form of the MACT standards for today's proposed rule.
a. Mass Rate Emission Limit. A mass rate emission limit would be
based on information that owners and operators of cellulose ether
operations and viscose process operations consider CBI (such
[[Page 52177]]
as, amount of final product produced, amount of HAP used, and amount of
cellulose used). Considering the small size of the groups used to
determine the MACT floors for viscose process vents and cellulose ether
process vents, we determined that specifying this type of emission
limit could reveal confidential information. Therefore, we rejected
this type of emission limit for today's proposed rule.
b. Percent Reduction Emission Limit. A percent reduction emission
limit is the most common type of emission limit for emission points
such as process vents, storage vessels, and wastewater emissions. The
percent reduction is calculated as a reduction in uncontrolled HAP
emissions.
For process vents at viscose process affected sources, we selected
an emission limit based on percent reduction of total sulfide emissions
from initial CS2 usage. This type of emission limit provides
owners and operators of viscose process affected sources with the
flexibility of take credit for controlling emissions of non-HAP
sulfides, implementing process changes that reduce CS2 usage
and recovering and reusing CS2. Total sulfide emissions
(CS2, H2S, and COS) would be reported as
CS2. Owners and operators of viscose process affected
sources would use the information from the material balance required in
today's proposed rule to take into account any sulfides that are
uncontrolled, lost to wastewater, etc., and then determine the percent
reduction for viscose process vents.
For process vents at cellulose ether affected sources, we also
selected an emission limit based on percent reduction of total HAP
emissions from initial HAP usage. This type of emission limit provides
owners and operators of cellulose ether affected sources with the
flexibility to take credit for implementing process changes that reduce
HAP usage and recovering and reusing HAP. Similar to viscose process
affected sources, owners and operators of cellulose ether affected
sources would use the information from the material balance required in
today's proposed rule to take into account any HAP that are
uncontrolled, lost to wastewater, etc., and then determine the percent
reduction for cellulose ether process vents.
c. Concentration Emission Limit. We considered a concentration
emission limit (such as ppm) as an alternative to a percent reduction
emission limit for process vents. For example, if concentrations prior
to a control device are already low, then a 90 percent reduction may
not be feasible. In such instances, an alternative concentration
emission limit at the control device outlet (such as, 20 ppm) could be
effective.
However, at viscose process operations, stack concentrations of
CS2 are fairly low because the vent stream is diluted. In
order to comply with OSHA limits for worker exposure to CS2,
the ventilation systems associated with viscose process operations are
designed to produce large volumes of process and building exhaust air,
which reduce the concentration of CS2 emission limit, then
viscose process operations may be able to reduce their CS2
concentrations by simply increasing the air flow (for example, by
installing more powerful fans), which would not achieve any actual
reduction in CS2 emissions. Therefore, we rejected
specifying an alternative CS2 concentration emission limit
for viscose process affected sources.
For cellulose ether affected sources, we also rejected specifying
an alternative HAP concentration emission limit. Based on available HAP
emissions data for cellulose ether operations, concentrations prior to
the control device are fairly high, so an alternative HAP concentration
emission limit is not necessary.
d. Equipment Standard. We are providing owners and operators of
viscose process affected sources with the option to comply with an
equipment standard as an alternative to the 83 percent reduction
emission limit for CS2 unloading and storage operations.
Under this equipment standard, owners and operators may install a
nitrogen system for unloading and storing their CS2. This
equipment standard is equivalent to the 83 percent reduction emission
limit because the nitrogen system has been demonstrated to achieve an
85 percent reduction in CS2 emissions relative to water
systems.
For process vents at viscose process affected sources, an equipment
standard would be restrictive, given the range of CS2
control technologies available (such as, biofilters, carbon adsorbers,
oil absorbers, and condensers). An emission limit (such as, percent
reduction) would provide owners and operators with the flexibility to
try different approaches to meeting the MACT standard.
e. Work Practice Standard. For equipment leaks (such as, from
valves, flanges, and connectors), an LDAR work practice standard is the
most common type of standard. In today's proposed rule, we are
requiring owners and operators of new and existing cellulose ether
affected sources to determine the frequency of monitoring for their
equipment components and a schedule of repair. We are requiring owners
and operators to comply with the LDAR standards of subpart H of 40 CFR
part 63. We are evaluating the LDAR standards of the proposed
Consolidated Air Rule and may allow that as an alternative in the final
rule. The proposed Consolidated Air Rule allows less frequent
monitoring and repair (compared to the HON) if owners and operators can
demonstrate that they are below a certain number of leaks.
For wastewater emissions, we are specifying emission limits and
work practice standards based on the process wastewater provisions in
subpart G of 40 CFR part 63.
G. How did we select the alternative standards?
We evaluated pollution prevention standards as an alternative to
the emission limits and work practice standards. Based on the
evaluations presented below, we decided to reject the pollution
prevention alternative standards for today's proposed rule.
One cellulose ether operation reduces HAP emissions by extending
the reaction time beyond the point of profitability in a technique
called ``extended cookout'' or ECO. By using up most of the HAP raw
material in the reaction, this pollution prevention technique leaves
less unreacted HAP to be emitted downstream. However, insufficient
information is available to determine if this technique can achieve the
emission reductions necessary to meet MACT floor requirements.
One cellulose food casing operation has developed a non-viscose
process that emits no HAP (that is, no CS2) and expects to
reduce total air emissions by about 99 percent. However, the non-
viscose process will not be available prior to proposal and
promulgation and has not yet been proven to be an effective alternative
process. Also, none of the other viscose process operations (rayon,
cellophane, cellulosic sponge) have a non-HAP alternative process for
their operations. Therefore, this type of standard may not be feasible
for those process operations.
Each of the cellulose food casing operations has implemented
process changes to reduce the amount of CS2 added to the
viscose process. However, the owners and operators of these cellulose
food casing operations have declared the details of these process
changes to be confidential, making a pollution prevention standard
based on reduction of CS2 usage infeasible.
[[Page 52178]]
H. How did we select the standards for the Viscose Processes source
category?
We selected the proposed standards for the Viscose Processes source
category based on our assessment of the cost of achieving the MACT
floor and beyond-the-floor control options developed for the source
category and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements.
1. Standards for Existing Viscose Process Affected Sources
For existing viscose process affected sources, we selected the MACT
floor control options for process vents, CS2 unloading and
storage operations, and toluene storage vessels as the standards for
those emission points. We chose not to select any beyond-the-floor
options as standards for existing viscose process affected sources. The
additional cost of control beyond the floor was not reasonable.
The only beyond-the-floor options we considered were 75 percent
control of total sulfide emissions of cellulose food casing process
vents and 75 percent control of total sulfide emissions for rayon
process vents. For process vents at existing cellulose food casing
operations, we determined that the incremental cost effectiveness of
going beyond the floor would range from $500 to $700 per tone of total
sulfide (reported as CS2). The low incremental cost
effectiveness is based primarily on the larger emission reductions
achieved beyond the floor. The high capital costs ($3.9 to $5.8
million) to install control technology capable of achieving 75 percent
control beyond the floor and the economic status of the cellulose food
casing industry are the primary factors in our rejecting beyond-the-
floor requirements for cellulose food casing operations at existing
viscose process affected sources.
For process vents at existing rayon operations, we determined that
the incremental cost effectiveness of going beyond the floor would
range from $500 to $1,300 per ton of total sulfide (reported as
CS2). The low incremental cost effectiveness is based
primarily on the larger emission reductions achieved beyond the floor.
The high capital costs ($15.3 to $21.8 million) to install control
technology capable of achieving 75 percent control beyond the floor and
the economic status of the rayon industry are the primary factors in
our rejecting beyond-the-floor requirements for rayon operations at
existing rayon process affected sources.
2. Standards for New Viscose Process Affected Sources
For new viscose process affected sources, we selected the MACT
floor control options for CS2 unloading and storage
operations, toluene storage vessels, cellophane process vents, and
cellulosic sponge process vents as the standards for those emission
points. We also selected the beyond-the-floor control options for
cellulose food casing process vents and rayon process vents (that is,
75 percent control of total sulfide emissions) as the standards for
those emission points. We believe that the cost of additional controls
beyond the MACT floor for new viscose process affected sources is
reasonable.
As noted in the previous section, we rejected beyond-the-floor
control options for cellulose food casing process vents and rayon
process vents for existing viscose process affected sources because of
the high capital costs and economic status of the respective
industries. However, we project that capital costs will be lower for
cellulose food casing operations at new viscose process affected
sources. The control technology costs for the existing operations
include retrofit costs which increased the capital costs by 50 percent.
Retrofit costs will not be a factor for cellulose food casing
operations and rayon operations at new viscose process affected
sources.
Also, the non-air quality impacts and energy requirements for
cellulose food casing operations and rayon operations at new viscose
process affected sources are expected to be minimal. We project that
the non-air quality impacts and energy requirements for new viscose
process affected sources will be comparable to those determined for
existing viscose process affected sources. The energy requirements
necessary to achieve control of total sulfide emissions beyond the MACT
floor range for 2,800 to 4,600 MWh/yr for the three existing cellulose
food casing operations and from 7,600 to 20,000 MWh/yr for the two
existing rayon operations. The wastewater impacts range from 15 to 35
million gal/yr for the three existing cellulose food casing operations
and from 57 to 165 million gal/yr for the two existing rayon
operations.
I. How did we select the standards for the Cellulose Ethers source
category?
We selected the proposed standards for the Cellulose Ethers source
category based on our assessment of the cost of achieving the MACT
floor and beyond-the-floor control options developed for the source
category and any non-air quality and environmental impacts and energy
requirements.
1. Standards for Existing Cellulose Ethers Affected Sources
For existing cellulose ether affected sources, we selected the MACT
floor control options for process vents and wastewater emissions as the
standards for those emission points. We also selected the beyond-the-
floor control option for equipment leaks as the standard for that
emission point. We believe that the cost of additional controls beyond
the MACT floor for existing cellulose ether affected sources is
reasonable.
The cost effectiveness of implementing the equipment leak
provisions in subpart H of the HON ranges from $400 to $600 per tone of
HAP for the five cellulose ether operations that do not currently have
LDAR program. The capital and annual costs are also low, with the
capital costs ranging from $10,800 to $21,600, and the annual costs
ranging from $17,200 to $95,900. There are no non-air quality impacts
and energy requirements associated with this beyond-the-floor
requirement.
2. Standards for New Cellulose Ether Affected Sources
For new cellulose ether affected sources, we selected the MACT
floor control options for process vents, wastewater emissions, and
equipment leaks as the standards for those emission points. There are
no beyond-the-floor control options for new cellulose ether affected
sources.
J. How did we select the testing and initial compliance requirements?
We selected the testing and initial compliance requirements based
on a combination of the generic testing requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) and specific testing
requirements for the Viscose Process and Cellulose Ethers source
categories.
1. Initial Performance Test Requirements
We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to
conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate initial compliance
with the applicable emission limits. As specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3) of
subpart A, the owners and operators would conduct three separate test
runs for each performance test and use the arithmetic mean of the
results of the three runs to determine compliance. As specified in
Sec. 63.7(e)(1) of subpart A, each test run must last at least 1 hour.
The owners and operators
[[Page 52179]]
would establish 3-hour averages for each performance test based on the
arithmetic means of the three, 1-hour test runs.
We structured the performance test requirements for continuous
operations to account for representative conditions. The owners and
operators would conduct testing of emissions from continuous process
vents at representative conditions, as defined in Sec. 63.1257(b)(7) of
the Pharmaceutical Products NESHAP (subpart GGG of 40 CFR part 63).
We structured the performance test requirements for batch
operations to account for the worst-case conditions. We adopted this
approach for batch operations because they are cyclical and, therefore,
tend to have variable emissions. The owners and operators would conduct
testing of emissions from batch process vents at either absolute or
hypothetical worst-case conditions, as defined in Sec. 63.1257(b)(8) of
the Pharmaceutical Products NESHAP (subpart GGG of 40 CFR part 63).
In order for owners and operators of affected sources to
demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable emissions limit for
their process vents, we are requiring them to test their process vent
emissions at the inlet and outlet to the control device and at the
stack. The owners and operators would use the applicable equations in
today's proposed rule to determine the percent reduction in emissions.
The average emissions measured during the 3-hour performance test must
be reduced by the applicable amount in the emission limit.
2. EPA Test Methods
As specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(2) of subpart A, we are requiring that
the performance tests be conducted using specified EPA test methods.
Owners and operators of cellulose food casing, rayon, cellophane, and
cellulosic sponge operations at new and existing viscose process
affected sources would use EPA Method 15, ``Determination of Hydrogen
Sulfide, Carbonyl Sulfide, and Carbon Disulfide Emissions from
Stationary Sources'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), to measure the
sulfide emissions from their process vents. The EPA Method 15 is the
predominant test method used for measuring emissions of the sulfides
CS2, H2S, and COS from stationary sources. The
EPA Method 15 has been used in previous emission tests to measure
sulfide emissions at a cellulose food casing process operation and a
cellulosic sponge process operation.
Except as specified below, owners and operators of cellulose ether
operations at new and existing cellulose ether affected sources would
use EPA Method 18, ``Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions
by Gas Chromatography'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), to measure the
emissions of organic HAP such as ethylene oxide, methanol, methyl
chloride, and propylene oxide from their process vents. Owners and
operators would use Method 25, ``Determination of Total Gaseous
Nonmethane Organic Emissions as Carbon'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A),
to determine the destruction efficiency of thermal oxidizers for
organic compounds. Owners and operators may use Method 25A,
``Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration using a Flame
Ionization Analyzer'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), under the following
conditions: (1) an exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentration of
50 ppmv or less is required in order to comply with the emission limit,
or (2) the volatile organic matter concentration at the inlet to the
control device and the required level of control are such as to result
in exhaust volatile organic matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or less;
or (3) because of the high efficiency of the control device, the
anticipated volatile organic matter concentration at the control device
exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of the inlet concentration.
Owners and operators of cellophane operations at new and existing
viscose process affected sources would use EPA Method 18 to measure
emissions of toluence from their solvent coating process vents and
toluene storage vessels. The EPA Method 18 is the predominant test
method used for measuring emissions of speciated gaseous organics.
3. Material Balance
In order for owners and operators of viscose process affected
sources to demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable
percent reduction standard, they must be able to calculate the percent
reduction of emissions on an ongoing basis after the initial
performance test. Therefore, as an additional initial compliance
requirement, the owners and operators must also prepare a material
balance that includes information on HAP usage and HAP emissions. The
material balance would be based on information from the initial
performance test and from records at the affected source. If the owners
and operators use pollution prevention process changes to comply with
the emission limits, then the material balance must include information
on the amount of HAP that would have been used in the absence of the
process change and the amount of HAP that was used after the process
change was implemented. By recording this information, the owners and
operators would be able to determine the percent reduction from
implementing the process change. The owners and operators would use the
applicable equation in today's proposed rule to determine the percent
reduction from process changes and any other emission controls.
4. Determination of Operating Limits
In order to establish the operating limits used to demonstrate
continuous compliance, the owners and operators of affected sources
must install the monitoring equipment used to establish these limits.
Because the operating limits will be established during the initial
performance test, the owners and operators must install the monitoring
equipment prior to the initial performance test. We selected operating
parameters for each control device that are reliable indicators of
control device performance. See section III.K.1 for further information
on the selection of the operating parameters.
To establish site-specific operating limits for condensers, thermal
oxidizers, water scrubbers, caustic scrubbers, biofilters, and oil
absorbers, the owners and operators must record the applicable
operating parameters averaged over the same period as the performance
test while the vent stream is routed and constituted normally. For
flares, the owners and operators must comply with the requirements in
Sec. 63.11 of subpart A to establish site-specific operating limits.
For carbon absorbers, the owners and operators must record the
applicable operating parameters for each carbon bed regeneration cycle
during the period of the performance test. In each case, the owners and
operators must locate the monitoring sensors in positions that provide
representative parameter values.
5. Initial Compliance Requirements for CS2 Unloading and
Storage Operations
Owners and operators of new and existing cellulose food casing,
rayon, cellophane, and cellulosic sponge affected sources would have
three options for demonstrating initial compliance with the emission
limits and work practice standards for CS2 unloading and
storage operations. If the owners and operators choose to reduce the
CS2 emissions from their CS2 unloading and
storage operations by 83 percent by any compliance method, they must
have a record documenting how they met the 83 percent emission limit.
If they met the 83 percent
[[Page 52180]]
emission limit by installing a nitrogen system, they would calculate
the actual percent reduction achieved using the applicable equation in
today's proposed rule. If they met the 83 percent emission limit by
venting emissions to a control device, then they must conduct an
initial performance test to demonstrate the actual percent reduction
achieved, prepare a material balance based on information from the test
and from records at the affected source, and establish the appropriate
control device operating parameters during the test. Owners and
operators would calculate the percent reduction of emissions measured
during the performance test using the applicable equation in today's
proposed rule.
If the owners and operators decide to reduce their CS2
emissions by installing a nitrogen system for CS2 unloading
and storage, then they must have a record certifying that a nitrogen
system is being used for CS2 unloading and storage
operations. Using a nitrogen system for CS2 unloading and
storage ensures the reduction of CS2 emissions by at least
83 percent relative to water systems, based on MACT floor calculations.
If the owners and operators decide to obtain an equivalent emission
reduction from elsewhere in the viscose process, such as a 0.14 percent
reduction from process vents, then they must comply with the initial
compliance requirements for process vents, that is, conduct an initial
performance test of sulfide emissions, prepare a material balance, and
establish the appropriate control device operating parameters during
the test. The average total sulfide emissions from the process vents,
measured during the 3-hour performance test, must be reduced by the
applicable amount (such as 75 percent for cellulosic sponge operations)
plus 0.14 percent.
6. Initial Compliance Requirements for Cellulose Ether Operations for
Wastewater Emissions
Because cellulose ether operations at new and existing cellulose
ether affected sources are subject to the applicable process wastewater
provisions of subpart G of 40 CFR part 63, they are also subject to the
applicable initial compliance provisions of subpart G for process
wastewater. These initial compliance provisions include using EPA
Method 305, ``Measurement of Emission Potential of Individual Volatile
Organic Compounds in Waste'' (40 CFR part 63, appendix A), which is one
test method mentioned under subpart G for concentration measurements of
process wastewater.
7. Initial Compliance Requirements for Cellulose Ether Operations for
Equipment Leaks
Because cellulose ether operations at new and existing cellulose
ether affected cellulose ether affected sources are subject to the
applicable equipment leak standards of subpart H of 40 CFR part 63,
they are also subject to the applicable initial compliance provisions
of subpart H for equipment leaks. These initial compliance provisions
include using EPA Method 21, ``Determination of Volatile Organic
Compounds Leaks'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), which is the
predominant test method for determining equipment leaks from process
equipment, such as valves, flanges and other connections, pumps and
compressors, and pressure relief devices.
K. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
We selected the continuous compliance requirements based on a
combination of general monitoring requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) and specific monitoring
requirements for the Viscose Processes and Cellulose Ethers source
categories.
1. Control Device Parameter Monitoring Requirements
As specified in Sec. 63.8(c) of subpart A, the owners and operators
of affected sources must record the data from their monitoring systems
at least once every 15 minutes. They must have a minimum of three of
the four required data points to constitute a valid hour of data. They
must also have valid hourly data for at least 66 percent of every
averaging period (such as, two valid hourly values for a 3-hour
averaging period).
In most cases, owners and operators are required to calculate 3-
hour averages of their operating parameter values for the purpose of
demonstrating continuous compliance with the emission limit. (for
carbon adsorbers, owners and operators are required to monitor
operating parameters for each regeneration cycle.) We selected the 3-
hour averaging time because the initial performance test provisions in
today's proposed rule require owners and operators to perform a minimum
of three, 1-hour test runs, and the limits of the established parameter
values would be based on the average values obtained using all test
data obtained during the performance test. Each 3-hour average
parameter value must be within the level established during the initial
performance test in order for the owners and operators to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the operating limit.
Based on information from operations in the Viscose Processes
source category, the Cellulose Ethers source category, and other source
categories, we selected operating parameters for each control device
that are reliable indicators of control device performance. Owners and
operators of affected sources would monitor these operating parameters
to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits.
a. Carbon Adsorbers. We selected the operating parameters for
carbon adsorbers based on monitoring provisions in subpart G of 40 CFR
part 63 and in the Pharmaceutical Products NESHAP (subpart GGG of 40
CFR part 63). We are requiring owners and operators of affected sources
equipped with carbon adsorbers to monitor and record the following
parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance: (1) Total regeneration
stream flow during the carbon bed regeneration cycle, (2) the
temperature of the carbon bed after regeneration, (3) the temperature
of the carbon bed after completing the cooling cycle, and (4)
regeneration frequency (operating time since the end of the last
regeneration). Inlet temperature and flow can affect the adsorption
unit efficiency.
b. Thermal Oxidizers. Based on information from subpart G of 40 CFR
part 63 and from cellulose ether and cellulosic sponge operations, we
are requiring owners and operators of affected sources equipped with
thermal oxidizers to monitor the temperature in the firebox or in the
ductwork immediately downstream of the firebox. A sufficiently high
temperature in the firebox helps to ensure complete combustion.
c. Biofilters. We selected the operating parameters for biofilters
based on information from a cellulosic sponge operation and a biofilter
vendor. We are requiring owners and operators of affected sources
equipped with a biofilter to monitor the following parameters to
demonstrate continuous compliance: (1) Inlet air flow temperature, (2)
inlet air flow rate, (3) amount of water and nutrients added, (4)
nutrient levels in the biofilter discharge, (5) pH of the effluent, (6)
conductivity of the effluent, and (7) pressure drop on the media. These
monitoring parameters have also been recommended by a biofilter vendor.
Monitoring the temperature and gas flow rate at the biofilter inlet
can assist the owners and operators in maintaining an optimal inlet
temperature and flow. Monitoring the nutrient levels added to
[[Page 52181]]
the system and in the biofilter discharge determines whether the
microbes in the biofilter bed are receiving enough nutrients; the
presence of some excess nutrients is an indication that they are. By
measuring the pH and conductivity of the effluent, owners and operators
can monitor the buildup of sulfuric acid. The pH decreases and the
conductivity of the effluent increases as levels of sulfur and sulfuric
acid increase. Monitoring the pressure drop across the system can alert
owners and operators to problems in the system that increase the
pressure drop (such as fungal growth sealing off the bottom of the
biofilter bed).
d. Condensers. Based on information from the subpart G of 40 CFR
part 63 and from cellulose ether operations, we are requiring owners
and operators of affected sources equipped with condensers to monitor
the condenser outlet gas temperature. Monitoring the outlet gas
temperature helps to ensure proper operation of the condenser.
e. Oil Absorbers. No information is readily available on operating
parameters for owners and operators of affected sources with oil
absorbers. However, several parameters are suggested based on the
method of operation of this control device. After the CS2
vapors from the process are absorbed in an absorption vessel, the
absorption liquid is passed to heat exchangers, which increase the
temperature of the liquid and enhance the release of the CS2
from the absorption liquid in a steam stripper. The absorption liquid
from the stripper is sent through a heat exchanger to cool and is
returned to the absorber. The flow of absorption liquid through the
absorber, the stripping and condensation temperatures before and after
the steam stripper, and the steam flow are good parameters for ensuring
the proper operation of this control device. Consequently, we are
requiring owners and operators of affected sources equipped with oil
absorbers to monitor these parameters to demonstrate continuous
compliance.
f. Scrubbers. We selected the operating parameters for packed tower
scrubbers based on information from subpart G of 40 CFR part 63, and
the Pharmaceutical Products NESHAP (subpart GGG of part 63), cellulose
food casing operations, and cellulose ether operations. Owners and
operators of affected sources equipped with packet tower scrubbers that
use water as the scrubber liquid would monitor scrubber pressure drop
and scrubber liquid flow rate to demonstrate continuous compliance.
Owners and operators of affected sources equipped with packed tower
scrubbers that use caustic scrubber liquid would monitor these two
parameters and also scrubber liquid pH. The pressure drop across the
packed tower scrubber is an indicator of whether the packing in the
scrubber is becoming clogged. Continued flow of scrubber liquid ensures
that the scrubber is operating properly. Monitoring the pH of the
scrubber liquid ensures that the scrubber liquid is at the optimal pH
level for absorbing the target pollutant.
g. Flares. The simplest and most effective means of determining
whether a flare is operating properly is whether the pilot flame is
still burning. Therefore, we are requiring owners and operators of
affected sources using flares to monitor the presence of the pilot
flame in addition to the other flare operating requirements (such as
design specifications, heat content specifications, exit velocity
limitation, etc.) specified in Sec. 63.11 of subpart A.
2. Material Balance
In order for owners and operators of viscose process affected
sources to demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable
percent reduction standard, they must be able to calculate the percent
reduction of emissions on an ongoing basis. They would calculate the
percent reduction using the emissions data from the material balance
that they established as part of their initial compliance requirements.
The material balance would include information on HAP usage and HAP
emissions based on information from the initial performance test and
from records at the affected source. If the owners and operators use
pollution prevention process changes to comply with the emission
limits, then the material balance would include information on the
amount of HAP that would have been used in the absence of the process
change, and the amount of HAP that was used after the process change
was implemented. By recording this information, the owners and
operators would be able to determine the percent reduction from
implementing the process change. The owners and operators would use the
applicable equation in today's proposed rule to determine the percent
reduction from process changes and any other emission controls.
3. Continuous Compliance Requirements for CS2 Unloading and
Storage Operations
Owners and operators of cellulose food casing, rayon, cellophane,
and cellulosic sponge at new and existing viscose process affected
sources would have three options for demonstrating continuous
compliance with the emission limits and work practice standards for
CS2 unloading and storage operations.
If owners and operators choose to reduce the CS2
emissions from their CS2 unloading and storage operations by
83 percent by any compliance method, they must keep a record
documenting how they are meeting the 83 percent emission limit. If they
met the 83 percent emission limit by installing a nitrogen system, they
would calculate the actual percent reduction achieved using the
applicable equation in today's proposed rule. If they met the 85
percent emission limit by venting emissions to a control device, then
they must monitor the appropriate control device operating parameters
and meet the appropriate operating limits. They would also calculate
the percent reduction of emissions from the material balance using the
applicable equation in today's proposed rule.
If owners and operators decide to reduce their CS2
emissions by installing a nitrogen system for CS2 unloading
and storage, then they must keep the record established as part of
their initial compliance requirements certifying that a nitrogen system
is being used for CS2 unloading and storage operations.
Using a nitrogen system for CS2 unloading and storage
ensures the reduction of CS2 emissions by at least 83
percent relative to water systems, based on MACT floor calculations.
If owners and operators of affected sources decide to obtain an
equivalent emission reduction from elsewhere in the viscose process,
such as a 0.14 percent reduction from process vents, then they must
comply with the continuous compliance requirements for process vents.
They must monitor and record operating parameters at least once every
15 minutes and calculate 3-hour averages of operating parameter values.
Each 3-hour average parameter value must be within the value
established during the initial performance test to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the operating limit. They must also maintain
the material balance that they established as part of their initial
compliance requirements and document the percent reduction of total
sulfide (reported as CS2) using the emissions data from the
material balance. The average total sulfide emissions from the process
vents, based on information from the material balance, must be reduced
by the applicable amount (such as 75 percent for cellulosic sponge
operations) plus 0.14 percent.
[[Page 52182]]
4. Continuous Compliance Requirements for Cellulose Ether Operations
for Wastewater Emissions
Because owners and operators of new and existing cellulose ether
affected sources are subject to the applicable process wastewater
provisions of subpart G of 40 CFR part 63, they are also subject to the
applicable continuous compliance provisions of subpart G for process
wastewater.
5. Continuous Compliance Requirements for Cellulose Ether Operations
for Equipment Leaks
Because owners and operators of new and existing cellulose ether
affected sources are subject to the applicable equipment leak standards
of subpart H of 40 CFR part 63, they are also subject to the applicable
continuous compliance provisions of subpart H for equipment leaks.
L. How did we select the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?
We selected the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements based on generic requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) and specific requirements for
the Viscose Processes and Cellulose Ethers source categories.
1. Notification Requirements
The notification requirements that we selected include initial
notifications, notification of performance test, notification of
compliance status, and notification dates. These notification
requirements are based on requirements in Secs. 63.7(b) and (c),
63.8(f), 63.9(b) and (h), and 63.10(d)(2) of subpart A.
2. Reporting Requirements
The reporting requirements that we selected include semiannual
compliance reports, required in Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, and
immediate SSM reports, required in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of subpart A.
If there were no deviations from the emission limits, operating limits,
or work practice standards during the reporting period, then the
semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were
no deviations. If there were deviations from the emission limits,
operating limits, or work practice standards during the reporting
period, then the semiannual compliance report must include the
information required in today's proposed rule. If there was a startup,
shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period, and the source
took actions consistent with the SSM plan, then the compliance report
must include the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i) of subpart A. The
submittal date for the compliance report is based on information in
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v) of subpart A.
If there was a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period, and the owner or operator took actions inconsistent
with the SSM plan, then the owner or operator must submit an immediate
SSM report. The report must include the actions taken for the event and
the information provided in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of subpart A. The
submittal date for the immediate SSM report is based on
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of subpart A.
3. Recordkeeping Requirements
The recordkeeping requirements that we selected include a copy of
each notification and report, as well as documentation supporting any
initial notification or notification of compliance status, according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(1)(xiv) of subpart A. Owners and
operators of affected sources must also keep the records in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A related to SSM, records of performance
tests as required in Sec. 63.7(g)(1) of subpart A, and records for each
continuous parameter monitoring system.
The records for the continuous parameter monitoring system would
include records of operating limits and parameter monitoring data
required in today's proposed rule. Owners and operators of affected
sources that installed a nitrogen system to comply with the work
practice standard for CS2 unloading and storage operations
must keep records certifying that a nitrogen system is being used.
Owners and operators must keep records of all material balances and
calculations documenting the percent reduction in HAP emissions used to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits.
M. What is the relationship of this rule to other rules?
This section discusses the relationship between today's proposed
rule and other Federal rules covering cellulose products manufacturing
operations. We evaluated pertinent rules in an effort to minimize the
burden on the industry and enforcement authorities. We are interested
in hearing from you on specific suggestions for reducing the overall
burden of the rule without jeopardizing its enforceability of our
overall emission reduction goals.
1. Carbon Disulfide OSHA PEL
Occupational exposure to CS2 is regulated by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA). The current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for
CS2, established by OSHA in 1992, is 20 ppm as an 8-hour
time-weighted average (TWA) (29 CFR 1910.1000, subpart Z). The PEL
requires operations to reduce average worker exposure to CS2
at or below 20 ppm during an 8-hour shift of a 40-hour week.
Viscose process operations have reduced worker exposure to
CS2 by designing their ventilation systems to produce large
volumes of process and building exhaust air. As a result, viscose
process operations have relatively low CS2 concentrations
and high gas flow rates.
Currently, OSHA is evaluating setting a lower PEL for
CS2. Many viscose process operations have indicated that
they are currently achieving CS2 levels at or below 4 ppm,
which was the PEL for CS2 for a short period of time, prior
to its being increased to 20 ppm. Therefore, we do not anticipate any
OSHA limit at or above 4 ppm will have much impact on industry's
compliance with the CS2 emission reduction requirements in
today's proposed rule.
However, an OSHA limit lower than 4 ppm could require some viscose
process operations to take additional measures and increase their gas
flow rates in order to further reduce the CS2 concentrations
inside the operation. The more dilute flows, the more difficult it
becomes for MACT floor viscose process operations, that are currently
controlled, to maintain the level of CS2 control that they
currently achieve. Control devices would not be as efficient at
removing CS2 at reduced concentrations. Consequently, the
MACT floor would have to be revised downward. Otherwise, the MACT
standard would be based on obsolete, incorrect information.
The more dilute flow makes it more difficult for viscose process
operations to achieve the level of CS2 control necessary to
meet the MACT floor and increases emission control costs to meet the
MACT floor. The resulting higher cost effectiveness beyond the MACT
floor would make it more difficult for us to establish beyond-the-floor
requirements.
Conversely, a tighter OSHA limit could force some viscose process
operations to enclose more of their process in order to reduce the
CS2 concentrations inside the operation. The more
concentrated flows resulting from the lower OSHA limit would dovetail
with the need for more concentrated flows for the CS2
control devices used to comply with the MACT standard, whether the
standard is set at the MACT
[[Page 52183]]
floor or beyond-the-floor. To avoid any conflict in implementing our
respective standards, we are working with OSHA to coordinate our
efforts in reducing worker exposure to CS2 and air emissions
of CS2.
2. Polyether Polyols NESHAP
The proposed NESHAP for Polyether Polyols Production (subpart PPP
of 40 CFR part 63) (62 FR 46818, September 4, 1997) defined a
``polyether polyol'' as
. . . a compound formed through the polymerization of ethylene
oxide or propylene oxide or other cyclic ethers with compounds
having one or more reactive hydrogens (i.e., a hydrogen bonded to
nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur, etc.) to form polyethers. This
definition, excludes materials regulated under the HON, such as
glycols and glycol ethers.
One commenter on the proposed rule noted that the cellulose ether,
hydroxyethyl cellulose, is formed through the reaction of ethylene
oxide on cellulose polymer molecules. The commenter requested that EPA
clarify whether hydroxyethyl cellulose is included or excluded from the
definition of ``polyether polyol.'' In response to this comment, the
final Polyether Polyol NESHAP (64 FR 29439, June 1, 1999) revised the
definition of ``polyether polyol'' to specifically exclude hydroxyethyl
cellulose. Therefore, hydroxethyl cellulose operations are not subject
to the requirements of subpart PPP of 40 CFR part 63 and are subject to
today's proposed subpart.
However, the final Polyether Polyol NESHAP did not specifically
exclude any of the other cellulose ether operations (for example,
hydroxypropyl cellulose operations and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose
operations) subject to today's proposed rule and which also fall under
the definition of a polyether polyol. A revision to the Polyether
Polyol NESHAP that specifically excludes all cellulose ether operations
was published on May 8, 2000 (65 FR 26491). Once this change becomes
effective, cellulose ether operations will only be subject to this
subpart.
3. Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS)
The NSPS for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (40 CFR part
60, subpart Kb) includes requirements for storage vessels constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after July 23, 1984 that are used to store
volatile organic liquids. The NSPS exempts the following storage
vessels: (1) vessels with a design capacity less than 75 cubic meters
(m\3\), (2) vessels with a capacity greater than or equal to 151 m\3\
with a maximum true vapor pressure less than 3.5 kilopascals (kPa), and
(3) vessels with a capacity greater than or equal to 75 m\3\ but less
than 151 m\3\ with a maximum true vapor pressure less than 15 kPa.
Today's proposed rule also contains requirements for storage
vessels containing volatile organic liquids, specifically HAP storage
vessels containing CS2 or toluene at viscose process
affected sources. However, the CS2 storage vessel standards
in today's proposed rule primarily address the gaseous CS2
emissions being generated from the CS2-contaminated water
from water unloading and padding systems, not the gaseous
CS2 emissions from the storage vessel. Also, only the
cellophane operation has toluene storage vessels that would be subject
to the storage vessel provisions in subpart Kb and today's proposed
rule. Therefore, we project no overlap in requirements between subpart
Kb and today's proposed rule for CS2 storage vessels. The
owner or operator will identify in the notification of compliance
status which storage vessels are in compliance with subpart Kb.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
We have determined nationwide baseline HAP emissions from
operations in the Viscose Processes source category and Cellulose
Ethers source category to be 20,700 ton/yr at the current level of
control. We have determined that the proposed standards will reduce
total HAP emissions from these operations by about 4,060 ton/yr.
In addition to reducing emissions of HAP, the proposed standards
will also reduce emissions of non-HAP, such as H2S. We have
determined that the proposed standards will reduce H2S
emissions by about 1,490 ton/yr from a baseline level of 4,440 ton/yr.
We have determined that the proposed standards will increase
secondary emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and carbon monoxide from industrial and utility boilers by
about 23 ton/yr. Secondary emissions were assumed to be generated from
the utility boilers that generate the electricity for the control
devices as well as from the industrial boilers that generate the steam
used in operating the control devices (e.g., carbon adsorbers).
B. What are the cost impacts?
We have determined that the capital costs for emission control
equipment for the proposed standards will be $33.0 million, and the
capital costs for monitoring equipment will be $251,000. The capitol
costs include the costs to purchase and install the equipment.
We have determined that the incremental annual costs for emission
control for the proposed standards will be $7.7 million/yr, and the
annual costs for monitoring will be $362,000. The annual costs include
the direct annual costs (comprised of labor, materials, and utilities)
plus the indirect annual costs (comprised of overhead, taxes,
insurance, administrative charges, and capital recovery).
We expect that the total average costs for annual recordkeeping and
reporting required by the proposed standards will be $2,041 over the
first 3 years after implementation of the standards.
C. What are the economic impacts?
With our economic impact analysis, we sought to evaluate the
impacts this proposed rule would have on the cellulose manufacturing
market, consumers, and society. Because of the variability in end
products in cellulose products manufacturing, we assessed impacts on
five separate market segments. We treated the Cellulose Ethers source
category as one segment and divided the Viscose Processes source
category into four segments: cellophane, rayon, food casings, and
sponges. The total annualized social cost (in 1998 dollars) of the
proposed rule on the industry is $7.7 million, with costs to the firms
affected by this proposed rule ranging from 0.2 to 4.5 percent of
sales. The cost-to-sales ratios for ethers and cellophane were below 1
percent, suggesting the proposed rule had minimal impact on these
segments. Since the cost-to-sales ratios were higher overall for the
rayon, food casings, and sponge segments of the cellulose market, we
performed a market analysis using 1998 as the baseline. The results
indicated less than 1 percent change in market prices and in the
quantity of cellulose products produced for these three segments.
We do not predict that cellulose manufacturing facilities will
close as a result of this proposed rule. However, available economic
data suggest that some facilities in this source category would very
likely close if current trends continue--even if they did not incur
compliance costs from this proposed rule. The impact of these proposed
standards may be that decisions to close facilities may occur sooner
than they would otherwise.
[[Page 52184]]
D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy impacts?
We have determined that the overall energy demand (electricity plus
steam) for operations in the Viscose Processes source category and
Cellulose Ethers source category will increase by about 16,000 MWh/yr
under the proposed standards. We determined this net increase based on
the additional energy demand for control devices installed to meet the
proposed standards. No information for comparison is currently
available on the baseline energy consumption for the Viscoe Processes
source category and Cellulose Ethers source category.
We have determined that wastewater generation will increase by
about 115 million gal/yr from a baseline level of 9,204 million gal/yr
with the installation of the control devices. We project that some of
the control strategies examined for the proposed standards will
generate additional solid waste, primarily from the use of scrubbers.
We have no information on the amount of additional solid waste that
will be generated, but we anticipate that the amount will be small.
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
We would like to have full public participation in arriving at our
final decisions, and we encourage comment on all aspects of this
proposal from all interested parties. Interested parties should submit
supporting data and detailed analyses with their comments so we can
make maximum use of them. Information on where and when to submit
comments is listed in ``Comments'' under the ADDRESSES and DATES
sections. Information on procedures for submitting proprietary
information in the comments is listed in ``Comments'' under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the 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 obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently,
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order
12866.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless EPA consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their
concerns and EPA's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, it must include a certification from
EPA's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of
Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
This proposal rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
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 OMB, 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 proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal
governments own or operate cellulose food casing operations, rayon
operations, cellophane operations, cellulosic sponge operations, or
cellulose ether operations. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this action.
[[Page 52185]]
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives that EPA considered.
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. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology
performance. No children's risk analysis was performed because no
alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at
a reasonable cost. Furthermore, this rule has been determined not to be
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 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
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 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's 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 this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of this
proposed rule for any year has been determined to be less than $9
million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined
that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
has fewer than 1,000 employees for SIC codes 2823, 2819, and 2869;
fewer than 750 employees for SIC code 2821; or fewer than 500 employees
for SIC code 3089; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impact of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have
determined that only one company meets one of the definitions of small
entity--a small business that has fewer than 500 employees for SIC code
3089. This company owns only 1 of the 14 operations subject to today's
proposed rule. There are several firms subject to today's proposed rule
whose costs will be a greater percentage of sales than this small
business. Furthermore, the market impacts on this company are minimal,
and are in line with impacts experience by other firms subject to
today's proposed rule.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. We
held a number of meetings with industry in which the lone small
business participated, and we visited the only small business impacted
by this proposed rule. The EPA continues to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcomes
comments on issues related to such impacts.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will
be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has
prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document 1974.01, and
you may obtain a copy from Sandy Farmer by mail at Office of
Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, by email at [email protected], or by calling
(202) 260-2740. You may also download a copy off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective until
OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These
[[Page 52186]]
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by
section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to
EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which
a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA's
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the
control devices but would not require any notifications or reports
beyond those required by the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A). The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific
information needed to determine compliance.
The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden for this collection
(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the rule)
has been determined to be 42 labor hours per year, at a total annual
cost of $2,041. This burden number includes one-time notifications and
recordkeeping. Total capital/startup costs over the 3-year period of
the ICR have been determined to be $0. Total annualized operation and
maintenance costs associated with the notification requirements have
been determined to be $129.
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: (1) Review instructions; (2) 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; (3) adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; (4) train personnel to be able to respond to a collection
of information; (5) search data sources; (6) complete and review the
collection of information; and (7) 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.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after August 28, 2000, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by September
27, 2000. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory
and procurement activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (such as materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted
by one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples of
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of
Automotive engineers (SAE). 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.
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards for use in emissions testing. The search
for emissions testing procedures identified 20 voluntary consensus
standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA standard
reference methods. However, after reviewing the available standards,
EPA determined that nine of the candidate consensus standards
identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to
emission limits in the proposed rule would not be practical due to lack
of equivalency, documentation, and validation data. Eleven of the
remaining candidate consensus standards are under development or under
EPA review. The EPA plans to follow, review, and consider adopting
these standards after their development and after further review by EPA
is completed.
The ASTM D6420-99 is currently under EPA review as an approved
alternative to EPA Method 18. The EPA will also compare this final 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 final ASTM D6420-99 standard is very similar to these approved
alternative methods, which may be equally suitable for specific
applications. The EPA plans to continue its review of the final ASTM
standard and will consider adopting the ASTM standard at a later date.
The EPA takes comment on compliance demonstration requirements
proposed in this rulemaking and specifically invites the public to
identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Commenters should also explain why this proposed rule should adopt
these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of EPA's standards.
Emission test methods submitted for evaluation should be accompanied
with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data
and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if a method
other than EPA Method 301 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) was used).
Table 4 to the proposed rule lists the EPA test methods included in
the proposed rule. Most of the methods have been used by States and
industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, as specified in
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) of subpart A, the proposed rule also allows
any State or affected source to apply to EPA for permission to use an
alternative method in place of any of the EPA test methods listed in
Table 4 to the proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Cellulose products manufacturing, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 11, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter
I of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
[[Page 52187]]
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. It is proposed that part 63 be amended by adding subpart UUUU to
read as follows:
Subpart UUUU--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.5480 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.5485 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.5490 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.5495 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Work Practice Standards
63.5505 What emission limits, operating limits, and work practice
standards must I meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.5515 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.5530 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limits and work practice standards?
63.5535 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
63.5540 By what date must I conduct a performance test or other
initial compliance demonstration?
63.5545 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.5555 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards?
63.5560 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.5575 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.5580 What reports must I submit and when?
63.5585 What records must I keep?
63.5590 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.5600 What other requirements apply to me?
63.5605 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.5610 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables
Table 1 to Subpart UUUU--Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards
Table 2 to Subpart UUUU--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart UUUU--Initial Compliance With Emission Limits and
Work Practice Standards
Table 4 to Subpart UUUU--Requirements for Performance Tests
Table 5 to Subpart UUUU--Continuous Compliance with Emission Limits
and Work Practice Standards
Table 6 to Subpart UUUU--Continuous Compliance with Operating Limits
Table 7 to Subpart UUUU--Requirements for Notifications
Table 8 to Subpart UUUU--Requirements for Reports
Table 9 to Subpart UUUU--Requirements for Recordkeeping
Table 10 to Subpart UUUU--Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart UUUU
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.5480 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes emission limits, operating limits, and
work practice standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from
cellulose products manufacturing operations. Carbon disulfide, carbonyl
sulfide, ethylene oxide, methanol, methyl chloride, propylene oxide,
and toluene are the HAP emitted in the greatest quantities from
cellulose products manufacturing operations. This subpart also
establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and work
practice standards.
Sec. 63.5485 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a cellulose
products manufacturing operation that is located at a major source of
HAP emissions.
(a) Cellulose products manufacturing includes both the Viscose
Processes source category and the Cellulose Ethers source category. The
Viscose Processes source category includes the collection of
manufacturing processes that use the viscose process. These
manufacturing processes include the cellulose food casing, rayon,
cellophane, and cellulosic sponge manufacturing processes. The
Cellulose Ethers source category includes the collection of cellulose
ether operations that manufacture any of the following products:
carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl
cellulose, methyl cellulose, and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose.
(b) A major source of HAP is 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 any single HAP at a
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.
Sec. 63.5490 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing
affected source at a cellulose products manufacturing operation.
(b) The affected source for the Viscose Processes source category
is the sum of all operations engaged in the production of cellulose
food casing, rayon, cellophane, or cellulosic sponge. The affected
source for the Cellulose Ethers source category is the sum of all
operations engaged in the production of cellulose ethers.
(c) An affected source is a new affected source if you began
construction of the affected source after August 28, 2000 and you meet
the applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
(d) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
defined in Sec. 63.2.
(e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.
Sec. 63.5495 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must
comply with this subpart according to the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) If you start up your affected source before [the effective date
of the final rule], then you must comply with this subpart no later
than [the effective date of the final rule].
(2) If you start up your affected source after [the effective date
of the final rule], then you must comply with this subpart upon startup
of your affected source.
(b) If you have an existing affected source, then you must comply
with the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards
for existing sources no later than 3 years after [the effective date of
the final rule].
(c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit so that it becomes a major source of HAP, then the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section apply.
(1) Any portion of the existing facility that is a new affected
source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance with this
subpart upon startup.
(2) All other parts of the source must be in compliance with this
subpart by [3 years after the effective date of the final rule].
[[Page 52188]]
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.5575
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.5575 and in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted earlier than the
compliance date of the standards in this subpart.
Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Work Practice Standards
Sec. 63.5505 What emission limits, operating limits, and work practice
standards must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emission limit and work practice standard in
Table 1 to subpart UUUU that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to subpart UUUU
that applies to you.
(c) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), you may apply to EPA for
permission to use an alternative to the work practice standards in this
section.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.5515 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limits, operating
limits, and work practice standards in this subpart at all times,
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
(d) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of
this part, except as noted in Table 10 to subpart UUUU.
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.5530 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limits and work practice standards?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limit and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table
3 to subpart UUUU. You must also install and operate the monitoring
equipment according to the requirements in Sec. 63.5545 that apply to
you.
(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to subpart UUUU that applies to you according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.5535 and Table 4 to subpart UUUU.
(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status report
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements of Sec. 63.5580(e).
Sec. 63.5535 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) You must conduct each performance test for continuous process
vents according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the
specific conditions in Table 4 to this subpart. You must conduct each
performance test for batch process vents under the specific conditions
in Table 4 to this subpart and not under normal operating conditions as
specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(d) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance
test required in this section, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each
test run must last at least 1 hour.
(e) You must use the equations in paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of
this section to determine compliance with the emission limits.
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (e) (5) and (6) of this
section, you must calculate the percent reduction for each test run
using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AU00.000
Where:
PR = percent reduction, percent
ERi = total emission rate of organic HAP or sulfide in
the inlet vent stream of the control device, pounds per hour
ERo = total emission rate of organic HAP or sulfide in
the outlet vent stream of the control device, pounds per hour
ERs = total emission rate of organic HAP or sulfide in
the stack, pounds per hour
(2) The total organic HAP emission rate is the sum of the emission
rates of the individual HAP components. You must calculate total
organic HAP emission rate for each run using Equation 2 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AU00.001
Where:
ERHAPt = total emission rate of organic HAP in vent
stream, pounds per hour
ERHAPj = emission rate of individual organic HAP in vent
stream, pounds per hour
j = individual HAP
m = number of individual HAP sampled in each test run
i = test run
n = number of test runs
(3) The total sulfide emission rate is the sum of the emission
rates of the individual sulfide components, expressed as carbon
disulfide. You must calculate total sulfide emission rate for each test
run using Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AU00.002
Where:
ERsulft = total emission rate of sulfide in vent stream,
pounds per year, as carbon disulfide
ERCS2 = emission rate of carbon disulfide in vent
stream, pounds per hour
ERH2S = emission rate of hydrogen sulfide in vent
stream, pounds per hour
MCS2 = mass of carbon disulfide per pound-mole of carbon
disulfide, 76 pounds per pound-mole
MH2S = mass of hydrogen sulfide per pound-mole of carbon
disulfide, 68
[[Page 52189]]
pounds per pound-mole
ERCOS = emission rate of carbonyl sulfide in vent
stream, pounds per hour
MCOS = mass of carbonyl sulfide per pound-mole of carbon
disulfide, 120 pounds per pound-mole
i = test run
n = number of test runs
(4) You must calculate the percent reduction with process changes
and any other emissions reductions using Equation 4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AU00.003
Where:
PR = percent reduction, percent
ERu = total uncontrolled emission rate of organic HAP or
sulfide prior to process changes and other emission controls, pounds
per hour
ERs = total emission rate of organic HAP or sulfide in
the stack, pounds per hour
(5) You must calculate the total uncontrolled emission rate of
organic HAP or sulfide prior to process changes and other emission
controls using Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AU00.004
Where:
ERu = total uncontrolled emission rate of organic HAP or
sulfide prior to process changes and other emission controls, pounds
per hour
ERs = total emission rate of organic HAP or sulfide in
the stack, pounds per hour
ERo = total emission rate of organic HAP or sulfide in
the outlet vent stream of the control device, pounds per hour
ERi = total emission rate of organic HAP or sulfide in
the inlet vent stream of the control device, pounds per hour
CEpc = calculated control efficiency of process change,
percent
(6) You must calculate the percent reduction for carbon disulfide
unloading and storage operations using Equation 6 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AU00.005
Where:
PR = percent reduction, percent
ERw = emission rate of carbon disulfide from water
unloading and storage system, pounds per year
ERn = emission rate of carbon disulfide from nitrogen
unloading and storage system, pounds per year
(7) You must calculate the emission rate of carbon disulfide from a
water unloading and storage system using Equation 7 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AU00.006
Where:
ERw = emission rate of carbon disulfide from water
unloading and storage system, pounds per year
Vww = volume of wastewater, gallons per year
CCS2 = concentration of carbon disulfide in water, parts
per million volume
Fe = fraction of carbon disulfide emitted from
wastewater, 0.92 (based on Table 34 of the HON)
dCS2 = density of carbon disulfide, pounds per gallon
(8) You must calculate the emission rate of carbon disulfide from a
nitrogen unloading and storage system using Equation 8 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AU00.007
Where:
ERn = emission rate of carbon disulfide from nitrogen
unloading and storage system, pounds per year
TT = tank throughput, gallons per year
P1 = initial head space pressure, pounds per square inch
ambient
V1 = available head space volume (assume 50 percent of
capacity), gallons
VPa = ambient vapor pressure for carbon disulfide,
pounds per square inch ambient
MW = molecular weight of carbon disulfide, 76 pounds per pound-mole
TC = tank capacity, gallons
P2 = maximum vent setting of vapor pressure for carbon
disulfide, pounds per square inch ambient
F = conversion factor, 7.48 gallons per cubic foot
R = Ideal gas law constant, 10.73 pounds per square inch-cubic feet
per pound-mole-degrees Rankine
Ta = ambient temperature, degrees Rankine
(f) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) For condensers, record the outlet (product side) gas
temperature averaged over the same period as the performance test while
the vent stream is routed and constituted normally. Locate the
temperature sensor in a position that provides a representative
temperature.
(2) For thermal oxidizers, record the firebox temperature averaged
over the same period as the performance test. Locate the temperature
sensor in a position that provides a representative temperature.
(3) For water scrubbers, record the pressure drop and flow rate of
the scrubber liquid averaged over the same time period as the
performance test (both measured while the vent stream is routed and
constituted normally). Locate the pressure and flow sensors in
positions that provide representative measurements of the pressure and
flow.
(4) For caustic scrubbers, record the pressure drop, flow rate of
the scrubber liquid, and pH of the scrubber liquid averaged over the
same time period as the performance test (measured while the vent
stream is routed and constituted normally). Locate the pressure, flow,
and pH sensors in positions that provide representative measurements of
the pressure, flow and pH. Ensure the sample is properly mixed and
representative of the fluid to be measured.
(5) For flares, comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.11 to
establish site-specific operating limits.
(6) For biofilters, record the pressure drop across the biofilter
beds, inlet gas temperature, inlet gas flow rate, inlet nutrient and
water levels, effluent pH,
[[Page 52190]]
effluent conductivity, and effluent nutrient levels averaged over the
same time period as the performance test (measured while the vent
stream is routed and constituted normally). Locate the pressure,
temperature, flow, pH, and conductivity sensors in positions that
provide representative measurement of the pressure, temperature, flow,
pH, and conductivity. Ensure the sample is properly mixed and
representative of the fluid to be measured.
(7) For carbon adsorbers, record the total regeneration stream mass
flow during each carbon bed regeneration cycle during the period of the
performance test, the temperature of the carbon bed after each
regeneration during the period of the performance test (and within 15
minutes of completion of any cooling cycle or cycles), and the
operating time since the end of the last regeneration cycle during the
period of the performance test. Locate the temperature and flow sensors
in positions that provide representative measurement of the temperature
and flow.
(8) For oil absorbers, record the flow of absorption liquid through
the absorber, the temperatures of the absorption liquid before and
after the steam stripper, and the steam flow through the steam stripper
averaged during the same period of the performance test. Locate the
temperature and flow sensors in positions that provide representative
measurement of the temperature and flow.
Sec. 63.5540 By what date must I conduct a performance test or other
initial compliance demonstration?
(a) You must conduct performance tests at least 180 calendar days
before the compliance date that is specified for your source in
Sec. 63.5495 and according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
(b) For each emission limit or work practice standard that applies
to you in Table 3 of this subpart where initial compliance is not
demonstrated using a performance test, you must conduct the initial
compliance demonstration within 30 calendar days after the compliance
date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.5495.
Sec. 63.5545 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of three of
the four required data points to constitute a valid hour of data.
(2) Have valid hourly data for at least 66 percent of every
averaging period (such as, two valid hourly values for a 3-hour
averaging period).
(3) Determine the hourly average of all recorded readings.
(4) Determine the 3-hour average of all recorded readings for each
3-hour period during the semiannual reporting period described in Table
8 to this subpart.
(5) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(b) For each temperature monitoring device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.2 deg.C
or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger.
(3) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(4) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the
minor division of at least 20 deg.F.
(5) At least semiannually, perform an electronic calibration,
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual.
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature
sensor validation check, in which a second or redundant temperature
sensor placed near the process temperature sensor must yield a reading
within 16.7 deg.C of the process temperature sensor's reading.
(6) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature
range, or install a new temperature sensor.
(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
(c) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment, such as
straightening vanes, in a position that provides a representative flow.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2 percent of the
flow rate.
(3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to
upstream and downstream disturbances.
(4) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check.
(5) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(d) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (d)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure.
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a
transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range.
(4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a
new pressure sensor.
(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(e) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (a) and (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8
hours of process operation.
(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity.
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.5555 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in Tables 1 and 2 to
this subpart that applies to you according to methods specified in
Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart.
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
emission limit, each operating limit, and each work practice standard
in Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart that apply to you. This includes
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are
[[Page 52191]]
deviations from the emission limits, operating limits, and work
practice standards in this subpart. These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.5580.
(c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate according to the SSM plan.
(d) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating according to the SSM plan. The Administrator will
determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction are violations, according to the provisions
in Sec. 63.6(e).
Sec. 63.5560 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating,
including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum
data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the
control device and associated control system.
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.5575 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each notification in Table 7 to this subpart
that applies to you.
Sec. 63.5580 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report in Table 8 to this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submitting reports under Sec. 63.10, you must submit each report by the
date in Table 8 to this subpart and according to the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in
Sec. 63.5495 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.5495.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.5495.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(3)(iii)(A),
you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to
the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according
to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report. This certification must state that, based
on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the
statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and
complete.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there are no deviations from any emission limits, operating
limits, or work practice standards that apply to you (see Tables 5 and
6 to this subpart), the compliance report must contain a statement that
there were no deviations from the emission limits, operating limits, or
work practice standards during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-
control, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were
no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-control during the
reporting period. You must include specifications for out-of-control
operation in the CPMS quality control plan required under
Sec. 63.8(d)(2).
(d) For each deviation from an emission limit or work practice
standard that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a
CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits or
work practice standards in this subpart (see Table 5 to this subpart),
the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (4) and (d)(1) through (2) of this section. This includes
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(e) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CPMS to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limit or operating
limit in this subpart (see Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart), you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1)
through (12) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out-of-control.
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
[[Page 52192]]
(7) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the
reporting period and the total duration of CPMS downtime as a percent
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each hazardous air pollutant that was
monitored at the affected source.
(9) A brief description of the process units.
(10) A brief description of the CPMS.
(11) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in CPMS, processes, or controls
since the last reporting period.
(f) If you have obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a
compliance report according to Table 8 of this subpart along with, or
as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report
includes all required information concerning deviations from any
emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard in this
subpart, then submitting the compliance report will satisfy any
obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring
report. However, submitting a compliance report will not otherwise
affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit
requirements to the permit authority.
Sec. 63.5585 What records must I keep?
You must keep the records in Table 9 to this subpart that apply to
you.
Sec. 63.5590 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.5600 What other requirements apply to me?
Table 10 to this subpart shows which provisions of the General
Provisions in Secs. 63.1 through 63.13 apply to you.
Sec. 63.5605 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, or a delegated authority, such as your
State, local, or tribal agency. If the Administrator has delegated
authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency has
the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact
your EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to
your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the Administrator keeps the authorities contained in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section and does not delegate
such authorities to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission limits,
operating limits, and work practice standards in Sec. 63.5505(a)
through (c) and under Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.5610 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40
CFR 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Cellophane operation means an operation that manufactures a thin,
transparent cellulose material used in food packaging (for example,
candy, cheese, baked goods), adhesive tapes, and membranes for
industrial uses, such as batteries.
Cellulose ether operation means an operation that manufactures
cellulose derivatives used as thickeners and binders in consumer and
other products.
Cellulose ether process means a manufacturing process that includes
the following process steps:
(1) Reaction of cellulose (for example, wood pulp or cotton
linters) with sodium hydroxide to produce alkali cellulose;
(2) Reaction of the alkali cellulose with a chemical compound(s) to
produce a cellulose ether product;
(3) Washing and purification of the cellulose ether product; and
(4) Drying of the cellulose ether product.
Cellulose ethers source category means the collection of cellulose
ether operations that manufacture any of the following products:
carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl
cellulose, methyl cellulose, and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose.
Cellulose food casing operation means an operation that
manufactures cellulose casings used in manufacturing meat products (for
example, hot dogs, sausages). The food casings are used to form the
meat products and, in most cases, are removed from the meat products
before sale.
Cellulosic sponge operation means an operation that manufactures a
porous cellulose product for consumer use (for example, for cleaning).
Control technique means any equipment or process control used for
capturing, recovering, or oxidizing HAP vapors. The equipment includes,
but is not limited to, biofilters, carbon adsorbers, condensers,
flares, oil absorbers, thermal oxidizers, and scrubbers, or any
combination of these. The process control includes extended cookout and
viscose process modification (as defined in this section).
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limit, operating limit, or work
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart.
Emission point means an individual process vent, storage vessel,
wastewater stream, or equipment leak.
Equipment leak means emissions of HAP from a pump, valve, flange,
sampling connection, or other components (for example, compressor,
pressure relief device) in HAP service.
[[Page 52193]]
Extended cookout (ECO) means a control technique that reduces the
amount of unreacted ethylene oxide (EO) or propylene oxide (PO) leaving
the reactor. This is accomplished by allowing the product to react for
a longer time, thereby leaving less unreacted EO or PO and reducing
emissions of EO or PO that might have occurred otherwise.
Nitrogen system means the combination of a nitrogen unloading
system for unloading carbon disulfide and a nitrogen padding system for
storing carbon disulfide. The nitrogen unloading system is a system of
unloading carbon disulfide from railcars to storage vessels using
nitrogen displacement to prevent gaseous carbon disulfide emissions to
the atmosphere and to preclude contact with oxygen. The nitrogen
padding system is a system of padding the carbon disulfide storage
vessels with nitrogen to prevent contact with oxygen.
Oil absorber means a packed-bed absorber that absorbs pollutant
vapors using a type of oil (for example, kerosene) as the absorption
liquid.
Process vent means a vent from a process operation through which a
HAP-containing gas stream is, or has the potential to be, released to
the atmosphere. Process vents do not include vents on storage tanks,
vents on wastewater emission sources, or pieces of equipment regulated
under the equipment leak standards.
Rayon operation means an operation that manufactures cellulose
fibers used in the production of either textiles (for example, apparel,
drapery, upholstery) or non-woven products (for example, feminine
hygiene products, wipes, computer disk liners, surgical swabs).
Reconstruction means replacing components of an affected source so
that:
(1) The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent
of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a
comparable new affected source; and
(2) It is technologically and economically feasible for the
reconstructed source to meet the relevant standard(s) established in
this subpart. Reconstruction excludes any routine part replacement or
maintenance. Upon reconstruction, an affected source is subject to
relevant standards for new sources, including compliance dates,
irrespective of any change in emissions of HAP from that source.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Solvent coating process means a manufacturing process in which
cellophane film is coated (for example, with Saran or nitrocellulose)
to impart moisture impermeability to the film and to make it printable.
Both Saran and nitrocellulose use the same solvents--tetrahydrofuran
and toluene.
Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel used to store liquids
that contain one or more HAP. Storage vessels do not include the
following:
(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 (30 pounds per square inch) and without emissions to the
atmosphere;
(3) Vessels with capacities smaller than 38 cubic meters (10,000
gallons);
(4) Vessels and equipment storing and/or handling material that
contains no HAP or contains HAP as impurities only;
(5) Surge control vessels;
(6) Wastewater storage vessels; and
(7) Storage vessels assigned to another process unit regulated
under another subpart of part 63.
Subpart means 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU.
Total HAP means the sum of organic HAP emissions measured using EPA
Method 18.
Total sulfide means the sum of emissions for carbon disulfide,
hydrogen sulfide, and carbonyl sulfide reported as carbon disulfide
using EPA Method 15.
Viscose process. (1) Viscose process means a manufacturing process
that includes the following process steps:
(i) Reaction of cellulose (for example, wood pulp) with sodium
hydroxide to produce alkali cellulose;
(ii) Reaction of alkali cellulose with carbon disulfide to produce
sodium cellulose xanthate;
(iii) Combination of sodium cellulose xanthate with additional
sodium hydroxide to produce viscose solution;
(iv) Extrusion of the viscose into various shapes (for example,
hollow casings, thin fibers, thin sheets, molds);
(v) Regeneration of the cellulose product;
(vi) Washing of the cellulose product; and
(vii) Possibly acid or salt recovery.
(2) The cellulose products manufactured using the viscose process
include cellulose food casings, rayon, cellophane, and cellulosic
sponges.
Viscose process modification means a change to the viscose process
that occurred after January 1992 that allows either the recovery of
carbon disulfide or a reduction in carbon disulfide usage in the
process.
Viscose processes source category means the collection of
manufacturing processes that use the viscose process. These
manufacturing processes include the cellulose food casing, rayon,
cellophane, and cellulosic sponge manufacturing processes.
Wastewater means water which, during manufacturing or processing,
comes into direct contact with, or results from, the production or use
of any raw material, intermediate product, by-product, or waste
product.
Water system means the combination of a water unloading system for
unloading carbon disulfide and a water padding system for storing
carbon disulfide. The water unloading system is a system of unloading
carbon disulfide from railcars to storage vessels using water
displacement to prevent gaseous carbon disulfide emissions to the
atmosphere and to preclude contact with oxygen. The water padding
system is a system of padding the carbon disulfide storage vessels with
water to prevent contact with oxygen. The water, which is saturated
with carbon disulfide, is later sent to wastewater treatment.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.
Table 1 to Subpart UUUU.--Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . At . . . You must . . . Or you must . . . Or you must . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-------
1 The sum of all process Existing cellulose Reduce total
vents. food casing uncontrolled
operations. sulfide emissions
(reported as carbon
disulfide) by at
least 25% based on
a 6-month rolling
average.
[[Page 52194]]
2 The sum of all process New cellulose food Reduce total
vents. casing operations. uncontrolled
sulfide emissions
(reported as carbon
disulfide) by at
least 75% based on
a 6-month rolling
average.
3 The sum of all process Existing rayon Reduce total
vents. operations. uncontrolled
sulfide emissions
(reported as carbon
disulfide) by at
least 55% based on
a 6-month rolling
average.
4 The sum of all process New rayon operations Reduce total
vents. uncontrolled
sulfide emissions
(reported as carbon
disulfide) by at
least 75% based on
a 6-month rolling
average.
5 The sum of all cellophane Existing and new Reduce total
production process vents. cellophane uncontrolled
operations. sulfide emissions
(reported as carbon
disulfide) by at
least 85% based on
a 6-month rolling
average.
6 The sum of all solvent Existing and new Reduce uncontrolled
coating process vents. cellophane toluene emissions
operations. by at least 95%
based on a 6-month
rolling average.
7 The sum of all process Existing and new Reduce total
vents. cellulosic sponge uncontrolled
operations. sulfide emissions
(reported as carbon
disulfide) by at
least 75% based on
a 6-month rolling
average.
8 The sum of all process Existing and new Reduce total
vents. cellulose ether uncontrolled
operations. organic HAP
emissions by at
least 99% based on
a 6-month rolling
average.
9 Closed-loop systems....... Existing and new Comply by operating
cellulose ether the existing closed-
operations. loop system.
10 Each carbon disulfide Existing and new Reduce uncontrolled Reduce uncontrolled Install a
unloading and storage cellulose food carbon disulfide carbon disulfide nitrogen
operation. casing, rayon, emissions by at emissions by at unloading and
cellophane, and least 83% from least 0.14% from storage system
cellulosic sponge unloading and process vents. (as defined in
operations. storage operations Sec. 63.5610)
based on a 6-month
rolling average.
11 Each toluene storage Existing and new Reduce uncontrolled
vessel. cellophane toluene emissions
operations. by at least 95%
based on a 6-month
rolling average.
12 All sources of waste- Existing and new Comply with the
water emissions. cellulose ether applicable process
operations. wastewater
provisions of Secs.
63.132-63.140 of
subpart G of this
part.
13 Equipment leaks.......... Existing and new Comply with the Comply with the
cellulose ether applicable applicable
operations. equipment leak equipment leak
standards of Secs. standards of Secs.
63.162-63.179 of 65.106-65.118 of
subpart H of this subpart F of 40 CFR
part. part 65.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart UUUU.--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following control
technique . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Condenser................. Maintain the 3-hour average condenser
outlet gas temperature no higher than
the maximum value established during the
performance test.
2 Thermal oxidizer.......... Maintain the 3-hour average thermal
oxidizer firebox temperature no lower
than the minimum value established
during the performance test.
3 Water scrubber............ Maintain the 3-hour average scrubber
pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow
rate within the operating values
established during the performance test.
4 Caustic scrubber.......... Maintain the 3-hour average scrubber
pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, and
scrubber liquid flow rate within the
operating values established during the
performance test.
5 Flare..................... Maintain the applicable flare operating
parameters in Sec. 63.11 within the
operating values established during the
performance test.
6 Biofilter................. Maintain the 3-hour average biofilter
inlet gas temperature, gas flow rate,
and nutrient and water values; biofilter
effluent pH, conductivity, and nutrient
levels; and pressure drop within the
operating values established during the
performance test.
[[Page 52195]]
7 Carbon adsorber........... Maintain the regeneration frequency, bed
heating temperature, bed cooling
temperature, and regeneration stream
flow for each regeneration cycle within
the values established during the
performance test.
8 Oil absorber.............. Maintain the 3-hour average absorption
liquid flow, absorption liquid
temperature, and steam flow within the
values established during the
performance test.
9 Alternative control 1. Submit for approval a proposed site-
technique. specific monitoring plan that includes
(1) a description of the alternative
control device, (2) test results
verifying the performance of the control
device, (3) the appropriate operating
parameters that will be monitored, and
(4) the frequency of measuring and
recording to establish continuous
compliance with the operating limits.
2. Install, operate, and maintain the
parameter monitoring system for the
alternative control device in accordance
with the monitoring plan approved by the
Administrator.
3. Establish operating limits during the
initial performance test based on the
operating parameters for the alternative
control device included in the approved
monitoring plan.
4. Maintain the 3-hour average operating
parameter values for the alternative
control technique within the values
established during the performance test.
10 Any of the control 1. If you wish to establish alternative
techniques specified in this operating parameters, submit the
table. application for approval of the
alternative operating parameters no
later than the notification of the
performance test.
2. The application must include (1)
information justifying the request for
alternative operating parameters (such
as the infeasibility or impracticality
of using the operating parameters in
this proposed rule), (2) a description
of the proposed alternative control
device operating parameters, (3) the
monitoring approach, (4) the frequency
of measuring and recording the
alternative parameters, (5) how the
operating limits are to be calculated,
and (6) information documenting that the
alternative operating parameters would
provide equivalent or better assurance
of compliance with the standard.
3. Install, operate, and maintain the
alternative parameter monitoring systems
in accordance with the application
approved by the Administrator.
4. Establish operating limits during the
initial performance test based on the
alternative operating parameters
included in the approved application.
5. Maintain the 3-hour average
alternative operating parameter values
within the values established during the
performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Subpart UUUU.--Initial Compliance With Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following You have demonstrated
For . . . At . . . emission limit or work initial compliance if .
practice standard . . . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The sum of all process vents.. Existing cellulose food Reduce total 1. The average total
casing operations. uncontrolled sulfide sulfide emissions,
emissions (reported as measured during the 3-
carbon disulfide) by at hour performance test
least 25% based on a 6- using Method 15, are
month rolling average. reduced by the
applicable amount; and
2. You have a record of
the average operating
parameter values over
the 3-hour performance
test during which the
average total sulfide
emissions were reduced
by the applicable
amount; and
3. You prepare a
material balance that
includes data on carbon
disulfide usage and
carbon disulfide,
hydrogen sulfide, and
carbonyl sulfide
emissions at the inlet
and outlet to the
control device and the
stack. The material
balance must be based
on information from the
initial performance
test.
2 The sum of all process vents.. New cellulose food casing Reduce total 1. The average total
operations. uncontrolled sulfide sulfide emissions,
emissions (reported as measured during the 3-
carbon disulfide) by at hour performance test
least 75% based on a 6- using Method 15, are
month rolling average. reduced by the
applicable amount; and
2. You have a record of
the average operating
parameter values over
the 3-hour performance
test during which the
average total sulfide
emissions were reduced
by the applicable
amount; and
[[Page 52196]]
3. You prepare a
material balance that
includes data on carbon
disulfide usage and
carbon disulfide,
hydrogen sulfide, and
carbonyl sulfide
emissions at the inlet
and outlet to the
control device and the
stack. The material
balance must be based
on information from the
initial performance
test.
3 The sum of all process vents.. Existing rayon operations Reduce total 1. The average total
uncontrolled sulfide sulfide emissions,
emissions (reported as measured during the 3-
carbon disulfide) by at hour performance test
least 55% based on a 6- using Method 15, are
month rolling average. reduced by the
applicable amount; and
2. You have a record of
the average operating
parameter values over
the 3-hour performance
test during which the
average total sulfide
emissions were reduced
by the applicable
amount; and
3. You prepare a
material balance that
includes data on carbon
disulfide usage and
carbon disulfide,
hydrogen sulfide, and
carbonyl sulfide
emissions at the inlet
and outlet to the
control device and the
stack. The material
balance must be based
on information from the
initial performance
test.
4 The sum of all process vents.. New rayon operations..... Reduce total 1. The average total
uncontrolled sulfide sulfide emissions,
emissions (reported as measured during the 3-
carbon disulfide) by at hour performance test
least 75% based on a 6- using Method 15, are
month rolling average. reduced by the
applicable amount; and
2. You have a record of
the average operating
parameter values over
the 3-hour performance
test during which the
average total sulfide
emissions were reduced
by the applicable
amount; and
3. You prepare a
material balance that
includes data on carbon
disulfide usage and
carbon disulfide,
hydrogen sulfide, and
carbonyl sulfide
emissions at the inlet
and outlet to the
control device and the
stack. The material
balance must be based
on information from the
initial performance
test.
5 The sum of all cellophane Existing and new Reduce total 1. The average total
production process vents. cellophane operations. uncontrolled sulfide sulfide emissions,
emissions (as carbon measured during the 3-
disulfide) by at least hour performance test
85% based on a 6-month using Method 15, are
rolling average. reduced by the
applicable amount; and
2. You have a record of
the average operating
parameter values over
the 3-hour performance
test during which the
average total sulfide
emissions were reduced
by the applicable
amount; and
[[Page 52197]]
3. You prepare a
material balance that
includes data on carbon
disulfide usage and
carbon disulfide,
hydrogen sulfide, and
carbonyl sulfide
emissions at the inlet
and outlet to the
control device and the
stack. The material
balance must be based
on information from the
initial performance
test.
6 The sum of all solvent coating Existing and new Reduce uncontrolled 1. Average toluene
process vents. cellophane operations. toluene emissions by at emissions, measured
least 95% based on a 6- during the 3-hour
month rolling average. performance test using
Method 18, are reduced
by 95%; and
2. You have a record of
the average operating
parameter values over
the 3-hour performance
test during which the
average toluene
emissions were reduced
by 95%; and
3. You prepare a
material balance that
includes data on
toluene usage and
emissions at the inlet
and outlet to the
control device and the
stack. The material
balance must be based
on information from the
initial performance
test.
7 The sum of all process vents.. Existing and new Reduce total 1. The average total
cellulosic sponge uncontrolled sulfide sulfide emissions,
operations. emissions (as carbon measured during the 3-
disulfide) by at least hour performance test
75% based on a 6-month using Method 15, are
rolling average. reduced by the
applicable amount; and
2. You have a record of
the average operating
parameter values over
the 3-hour performance
test during which the
average total sulfide
emissions were reduced
by the applicable
amount; and
3. You prepare a
material balance that
includes data on carbon
disulfide usage and
carbon disulfide,
hydrogen sulfide, and
carbonyl sulfide
emissions at the inlet
and outlet to the
control device and the
stack. The material
balance must be based
on information from the
initial performance
test.
8 The sum of all process vents.. Existing and new Reduce total 1. Average total organic
cellulose ether uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, measured
operations. HAP emissions by at during the 3-hour
least 99% based on a 6- performance test using
month rolling average. Method 18, are reduced
by 99%; and
2. You have a record of
the average operating
parameter values over
the 3-hour performance
test during which the
average total organic
HAP emissions were
reduced by 99%.
9 Closed-loop systems........... Existing and new Operate and maintain the You have a record
cellulose ether closed-loop system for certifying that a
operations. cellulose ether closed-loop system is
operations. in use for cellulose
ether operations.
[[Page 52198]]
10 Each carbon disulfide Existing and new Reduce uncontrolled 1. You have a record
unloading and storage operation. cellulose food casing, carbon disulfide documenting the 83%
rayon, cellophane, and emissions by at least reduction in carbon
cellulosic sponge 83% from unloading and disulfide emissions
operations. storage operations relative to water
based on a 6-month systems.
rolling average. 2. If you meet the 83
Or...................... percent emission limit
by installing a
nitrogen system, you
must calculate the
actual percent
reduction achieved
using the applicable
equation in Sec.
63.5535.
3. If you meet the 83
percent emission limit
by venting emissions to
a control device, then
you must conduct an
initial performance
test to demonstrate the
actual percent
reduction achieved,
prepare a material
balance based on
information from the
test and from records
at the affected source,
and establish the
appropriate control
device operating
parameters during the
test. You must
calculate the percent
reduction of emissions
measured during the
performance test using
the applicable equation
in Sec. 63.5535.
Or
11............................... ......................... Reduce uncontrolled 1. You comply with the
carbon disulfide by at initial compliance
least 0.14% from requirements for
process vents based on process vents at
a 6-month rolling existing and new
average. cellulose food casing,
Or...................... rayon, cellophane, and
cellulosic sponge
operations.
2. The 0.14% reduction
must be in addition to
the reduction already
required for the
process vents for
cellulose food casing,
rayon, cellophane, and
cellulosic sponge
operations.
Or
12............................... ......................... Install a nitrogen You have a record
system for carbon certifying that a
disulfide unloading and nitrogen system is in
storage. use for carbon
disulfide unloading and
storage operations.
13 Each toluene storage vessel.. Existing and new Reduce uncontrolled 1. Average toluene
cellophane operations. toluene emissions by at emissions, measured
least 95% based on a 6- during the 3-hour
month rolling average. performance test using
Method 18, are reduced
by 95%; and
2. You have a record of
the average operating
parameter values over
the 3-hour performance
test during which the
average toluene
emissions were reduced
by 95%; and
3. You prepare a
material balance that
includes data on
toluene usage and
emissions at the inlet
and outlet to the
control device and the
stack. The material
balance must be based
on information from the
initial performance
test.
14 All sources of waste-water Existing and new Comply with the You comply with the
emissions. cellulose ether applicable process applicable process
operations. wastewater provisions wastewater initial
of Secs. 63.132-63.140 compliance provisions
of subpart G of this of Sec. 63.145 of
part. subpart G of this part.
[[Page 52199]]
15 Equipment leaks.............. Existing and new Comply with the You comply with the
cellulose ether applicable equipment applicable equipment
operations. leak standards of Secs. leak initial compliance
63.162-63.179 of provisions of Sec.
subpart H of this part. 63.180 of subpart H of
this part.
16 Equipment leaks.............. Existing and new Comply with the You comply with the
cellulose ether applicable equipment applicable equipment
operations. leak standards of Secs. leak initial compliance
65.106-65.118 of status report
subpart F of 40 CFR provisions of Secs.
part 65. 65.120 of subpart F of
40 CFR part 65.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Subpart UUUU.--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to
the following
For . . . At . . . You must . . . Using . . . requirements .
. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The sum of all process Any existing and new Select sampling Method 1 or 1A of 40 Sampling sites
vents. affected source. port's location and CFR part 60, must be
the number of appendix A Sec. located at the
traverse ports. 63.7(d)(1)(i). inlet and
outlet to the
control device
and the stack.
2 The sum of all process Any existing and new Determine velocity Method 2, 2A, 2C, You may use
vents. affected source. and volumetric flow 2D, 2F, or 2G in Method 2A, 2C,
rate. appendix A to part 2D, 2F, or 2G
60 of this chapter. as an
alternative to
using Method
2.
3 The sum of all process Any existing and new Conduct gas analysis Method 3, 3A, or 3B You may use
vents. affected source. in appendix A to Method 3A or
part 60 of this 3B as an
chapter. alternative to
using Method
3.
4 The sum of all process Any existing and new Measure moisture Method 4 in appendix
vents. affected source. content of the A to part 60 of
stack gas. this chapter.
5 The sum of all process Existing and new Measure total Method 15 in 1. You must
vents. cellulose food sulfide emissions. appendix A to part conduct
casing, rayon, 60 of this chapter. testing of
cellophane, and emissions from
cellulosic sponge continuous
operations. process vents
at
representative
conditions, as
specified in
Sec. 63.1257(
b)(7) of
subpart GGG of
this part.
2. You must
conduct
testing of
emissions from
batch process
vents at
absolute or
hypothetical
worst-case
conditions or
hypothetical
worst-case
conditions, as
specified in
Sec. 63.1257(
b)(8) of
subpart GGG of
this part.
3. You must
collect
operating
parameter
monitoring
system data
during the
period of the
initial
performance
test, and
determine the
operating
parameter
limit during
the period of
the initial
performance
test.
[[Page 52200]]
6 The sum of all solvent Existing and new Measure toluene Method 18 in 1. You must
coating process vents. cellophane emissions. appendix A to part conduct
operations. 60 of this chapter. testing of
emissions from
continuous
process vents
at
representative
conditions, as
specified in
Sec. 63.1257(
b)(7) of
subpart GGG of
this part.
2. You must
conduct
testing of
emissions from
batch process
vents at
absolute or
hypothetical
worst-case
conditions or
hypothetical
worst-case
conditions, as
specified in
Sec. 63.1257(
b)(8) of
subpart GGG of
this part.
3. You must
collect
operating
parameter
monitoring
system data
during the
period of the
initial
performance
test, and
determine the
operating
parameter
limit during
the period of
the initial
performance
test.
7 The sum of all process Existing and new Measure total Method 18, Method 1. You must use
vents. cellulose ether organic HAP 25, or Method 25A Method 25 to
operations. emissions. in appendix A to determine the
part 60 of this destruction
chapter. efficiency of
thermal
oxidizers for
organic
compounds.
2. You may use
Method 25A if:
a. An exhaust
gas volatile
organic matter
concentration
of 50 ppmv or
less is
required in
order to
comply with
the emission
limit, or
b. The volatile
organic matter
concentration
at the inlet
to the control
device and the
required level
of control are
such as to
result in
exhaust
volatile
organic matter
concentrations
of 50 ppmv or
less, or
c. Because of
the high
efficiency of
the control
device, the
anticipated
volatile
organic matter
concentration
at the control
device exhaust
is 50 ppmv or
less,
regardless of
the inlet
concentration.
[[Page 52201]]
3. You must
conduct
testing of
emissions from
continuous
process vents
at
representative
conditions, as
specified in
Sec. 63.1257(
b)(7) of
subpart GGG of
this part.
4. You must
conduct
testing of
emissions from
batch process
vents at
absolute or
hypothetical
worst-case
conditions or
hypothetical
worst-case
conditions, as
specified in
Sec. 63.1257(
b)(8) of
subpart GGG of
this part.
5. You must
collect
operating
parameter
monitoring
system data
during the
period of the
initial
performance
test, and
determine the
operating
parameter
limit during
the period of
the initial
performance
test.
8 Each toluene storage Existing and new Measure toluene Method 18 in 3. You must
vessel. cellophane emissions. appendix A to part collect
operations. 60 of this chapter. operating
parameter
monitoring
system data
during the
period of the
initial
performance
test, and
determine the
operating
parameter
limit during
the period of
the initial
performance
test.
9 All sources of waste- Existing and new Measure wastewater Applicable process You must follow
water emissions. cellulose ether HAP emissions. wastewater test all
operations. methods in Sec. requirements
63.145 of subpart G for the
of this part. applicable
process
wastewater
test methods
in Sec.
63.145 of
subpart G of
this part.
10 Equipment leaks.......... Existing and new Measure leak rate... Applicable equipment You must follow
cellulose ether leak test methods all
operations. in Sec. 63.180 of requirements
subpart H of this for the
part or Sec. applicable
65.104 of subpart F equipment leak
of 40 CFR part 65. test methods
in Sec.
63.180 of
subpart H of
this part or
Sec. 65.104
of subpart F
of 40 CFR part
65.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52202]]
Table 5 to Subpart UUUU.--Continuous Compliance With Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must
For the following Using the following demonstrate
For . . . At . . . emission limit or control technique . continuous
work practice . . compliance by .
standard . . . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The sum of all process Existing and new Applicable emission Process change...... 1. Maintaining
vents. cellulose food limit. a material
casing, rayon, balance that
cellophane, and includes data
cellulosic sponge on the amount
operations. of carbon
disulfide that
would have
been used in
the absence of
the process
change, the
amount of
carbon
disulfide that
was used after
the process
change was
implemented,
and the total
sulfide (as
carbon
disulfide)
emitted from
the process;
and
2. Documenting
the percent
reduction
using the
carbon
disulfide
usage and
emissions data
from the
material
balance.
2 The sum of all process Existing and new Applicable emission Any control 1. Maintaining
vents. cellulose food limit. technique. a material
casing, rayon, balance that
cellophane, and includes data
cellulosic sponge on carbon
operations. disulfide
usage and
carbon
disulfide,
hydrogen
sulfide, and
carbonyl
sulfide
emissions at
the inlet and
outlet to the
control device
and the stack;
and
2. Documenting
the percent
reduction of
total sulfide
(as carbon
disulfide)
using the
emissions data
from the
material
balance.
3 The sum of all solvent Existing and new Reduce uncontrolled Any control 1. Maintaining
coating process vents. cellophane toluene emissions technique. a material
operations. by 95% based on a 6- balance that
month rolling includes data
average. on toluene
usage and
emissions at
the inlet and
outlet to the
control device
and the stack;
and
2. Documenting
the percent
reduction of
toluene using
the emissions
data from the
material
balance.
4 The sum of all process Existing and new Reduce total Any control 1. Reducing
vents. cellulose ether uncontrolled technique. average total
operations. organic HAP organic HAP
emissions by at emissions,
least 99% based on measured using
a 6-month rolling Method 18, by
average. 99%; and
2. Keeping a
record
documenting
the 99%
reduction of
the average
total organic
HAP emissions.
[[Page 52203]]
5 Closed-loop systems....... Existing and new Operate and maintain Closed-loop system.. Keeping a
cellulose ether a closed-loop record
operations. system. certifying
that a closed-
loop system is
in use for
cellulose
ether
operations.
6 Each carbon disulfide Existing and new Reduce uncontrolled Any control Keeping a
unloading and storage cellulose food carbon disulfide technique. record
operation. casing, rayon, emissions by 83% documenting
cellophane, and based on a 6-month the 83%
cellulosic sponge rolling average. reduction in
operations. carbon
disulfide
emissions
relative to
water systems.
7 Each carbon disulfide Existing and new Reduce total Any control 1. Maintaining
unloading and storage cellulose food uncontrolled technique. a material
operation. casing, rayon, sulfide emissions balance that
cellophane, and by 0.14% from includes data
cellulosic sponge process vents based on carbon
operations. on a 6-month disulfide
rolling average. usage and
carbon
disulfide,
hydrogen
sulfide, and
carbonyl
sulfide
emissions at
the inlet and
outlet to the
control device
and the stack;
and
2. Documenting
the percent
reduction of
total sulfide
(as carbon
disulfide)
using the
emissions data
from the
material
balance.
8 Each carbon disulfide Existing and new Install a nitrogen Nitrogen system..... Keeping a
unloading and storage cellulose food system for carbon record
operation. casing, rayon, disulfide unloading certifying
cellophane, and and storage that a
cellulosic sponge operations. nitrogen
operations. system is in
use for carbon
disulfide
unloading and
storage
operations.
9 Each toluene storage Existing and new Reduce uncontrolled Any control 1. Maintaining
vessel. cellophane toluene emissions technique. a material
operations. by 95% based on a 6- balance that
month rolling includes data
average. on toluene
usage and
emissions at
the inlet and
outlet to the
control device
and the stack;
and
2. Documenting
the percent
reduction of
toluene using
the emissions
data from the
material
balance.
10 All sources of waste- Existing and new Applicable process Applicable process Complying with
water emissions. cellulose ether wastewater wastewater control the applicable
operations. provisions of Secs. techniques of Sec. process
63.132-63.140 of 63.139 of subpart G wastewater
subpart G of this of this part. continuous
part. compliance
provisions of
Sec. 63.143
of subpart G
of this part.
11 Equipment leaks.......... Existing and new Applicable equipment Applicable equipment Complying with
cellulose ether leak standards of leak control the applicable
operations. Secs. 63.162-63.17 techniques of Secs. equipment leak
9 of subpart H of 63.162-63.179 of continuous
this part. subpart H of this compliance
part. provisions of
Secs. 63.162-
63.179 of
subpart H of
this part.
[[Page 52204]]
12 Equipment leaks.......... Existing and new Applicable equipment Applicable equipment Complying with
cellulose ether leak standards of leak control the applicable
operations. Secs. 65.106-65.11 techniques of Secs. equipment leak
8 of subpart F of 65.106-65.118 of continuous
40 CFR part 65. subpart F of 40 CFR compliance
part 65. provisions of
Sec. 65.104
of subpart F
of 40 CFR part
65.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 to Subpart UUUU.--Continuous Compliance With Operating Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following control technique You must demonstrate continuous
. . . For the following operating limit . . compliance by . . .
-------------------------------------------------------.--------------------------------------------------------
1 Condenser....................... Maintain the 3-hour average condenser 1. Collecting the condenser outlet
outlet gas temperature no higher gas temperature data according to
than the maximum value established Sec. 63.5545; and
during the performance test. 2. Reducing the condenser outlet gas
temperature data to 3-hour
averages; and
3. Maintaining the 3-hour average
condenser outlet gas temperature
below the maximum value established
during the performance test.
2 Thermal oxidizer................ Maintain the 3-hour average thermal 1. Collecting the thermal oxidizer
oxidizer firebox temperature above firebox temperature data according
the minimum value established during to Sec. 63.5545; and
the performance test. 2. Reducing the thermal oxidizer
firebox temperature data to 3-hour
averages; and
3. Maintaining the 3-hour average
thermal oxidizer firebox
temperature above the minimum value
established during the performance
test.
3 Water scrubber.................. Maintain the 3-hour average scrubber 1. Collecting the scrubber pressure
pressure drop and scrubber liquid drop and scrubber liquid flow rate
flow rate within the values data according to Sec. 63.5545;
established during the performance and
test. 2. Reducing the scrubber parameter
data to 3-hour averages; and
3. Maintaining the 3-hour scrubber
parameter values within the values
established during the performance
test.
4 Caustic scrubber................ Maintain the 3-hour average scrubber 1. Collecting the scrubber pressure
pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, drop, scrubber liquid pH, and
and scrubber liquid flow rate within scrubber liquid flow rate data
the values established during the according to Sec. 63.5545; and
performance test. 2. Reducing the scrubber parameter
data to 3-hour averages; and
3. Maintaining the 3-hour scrubber
parameter values within the values
established during the performance
test.
5 Flare........................... Maintain the applicable flare 1. Collecting the applicable flare
operating parameter values in Sec. operating parameter data according
63.11 within the values established to the requirements in Sec. 63.11;
during the performance test. and
2. Maintaining the applicable flare
operating parameter values in Sec.
63.11 within the values established
during the performance test.
6 Biofilter....................... Maintain the 3-hour average biofilter 1. Collecting the biofilter inlet
inlet gas temperature, gas flow gas temperature, gas flow rate, and
rate, and nutrient and water levels; nutrient and water levels;
biofilter effluent pH, conductivity, biofilter effluent pH,
and nutrient levels; and pressure conductivity, and nutrient levels;
drop within the values established and biofilter pressure drop data
during the performance test. according to Sec. 63.5545; and
2. Reducing the biofilter parameter
data to 3-hour averages; and
3. Maintaining the 3-hour biofilter
parameter values within the values
established during the performance
test.
7 Carbon adsorber................. Maintain the regeneration frequency, 1. Collecting the regeneration
bed heating temperature, bed cooling frequency, bed heating temperature,
temperature, and regeneration stream bed cooling temperature, and
flow for each regeneration cycle regeneration stream flow data for
within the values established during each regeneration cycle according
the performance test. to Sec. 63.5545; and
2. Maintaining the carbon adsorber
parameter values for each
regeneration cycle within the
values established during the
performance test.
[[Page 52205]]
8 Oil absorber.................... Maintain the 3-hour average 1. Collecting the absorption liquid
absorption liquid flow, absorption flow, absorption liquid
liquid temperature, and steam flow temperature, and steam flow data
within the values established during according to Sec. 63.5545; and
the performance test. 2. Reducing the oil absorber
parameter data to 3-hour averages;
and
3. Maintaining the 3-hour oil
absorber parameter values within
the values established during the
performance test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 to Subpart UUUU.--Notifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If . . . Then . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 You operate a new or existing You must submit all of the
affected source. notifications in Sec. 63.6
(h)(4) and (h)(5), Sec. 63.7
(b) and (c), Sec. 63.8 (e)
and (f)(4) and (f)(6), and
Sec. 63.9 (b) through (h)
that apply to you by the dates
specified.
2 You start up your affected source You must submit an initial
before [the effective date of the notification not later than
final rule], as specified in Sec. [120 days after the effective
63.9(b)(2). date of the final rule].
3 You start up your new or You must submit an initial
reconstructed affected source on or notification not later than
after [the effective date of the final 120 calendar days after you
rule], as specified in Sec. become subject to this
63.9(b)(3). subpart.
4 You are required to conduct a You must submit a notification
performance test. of intent to conduct a
performance test at least 60
calendar days before the
performance test is scheduled
to begin, as required in Sec.
63.7(b)(1).
5 You are required to conduct a 1. You must submit a
performance test or other initial Notification of Compliance
compliance demonstration as specified Status, according to Sec.
in Table 3 of this subpart. 63.9(h)(2)(ii).
2. You must submit the
Notification of Compliance
Status, including the
performance test results,
before the close of business
on the 60th calendar day
following the completion of
the performance test according
to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
6 You are required to conduct an For each initial compliance
initial compliance demonstration as demonstration, you must submit
specified in Table 3 of this subpart the Notification of Compliance
that does not include a performance Status before the close of
test. business on the 30th calendar
day following the completion
of the initial compliance
demonstration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8 to Subpart UUUU.--Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit
You must submit a(n) . . . contain . . . the report . .
----------------------------------------------------------------.-------
1 Compliance report.......... 1. If there are no Semiannually
deviations from any according to
emission limit, the
operating limit, or requirements in
work practice Sec. 63.5580(b
standard during the ).
reporting period,
then the report must
contain the
information in Sec.
63.5580(c).
2. If there were no
periods during which
the CPMS was out-of-
control, then the
report must contain a
statement that there
were no periods
during which the CPMS
was out-of-control
during the reporting
period. You must
develop and include
specifications for
out-of-control
operation in the CPMS
quality control plan
required under Sec.
63.8(d)(2).
3. If there is a
deviation from any
emission limit,
operating limit, or
work practice
standard during the
reporting period,
then the report must
contain the
information in Sec.
63.5580 (c) and (d).
4. If there were
periods during which
the CPMS was out-of-
control, then the
report must contain
the information in
Sec. 63.5580(e).
5. If you had a
startup, shutdown or
malfunction during
the reporting period
and you took actions
consistent with your
SSM plan, then the
report must contain
the information in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
2 Immediate SSM report if you 1. Actions taken for 1. By fax or
took actions during a the event. telephone
startup, shutdown, or within 2
malfunction during the working days
reporting period that are not after starting
consistent with your SSM plan. actions
inconsistent
with the plan.
[[Page 52206]]
2. The information in 2. By letter
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii). within 7
working days
after the end
of the event
unless you have
made
alternative
arrangements
with the
permitting
authority.
[Sec. 63.10(d)
(5)(ii)].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9 to Subpart UUUU.--Recordkeeping Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must keep . . . The record(s) must contain . .
--------------------------------------------------------.---------------
1 A copy of each notification and All documentation supporting
report that you submitted to comply any initial notification or
with this subpart. notification of compliance
status that you submitted,
according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
2 The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) 1. SSM plan.
related to startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
2. When actions taken during a
startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are consistent
with the procedures specified
in the SSM plan, records
demonstrating that the
procedures specified in the
plan were followed.
3. Records of the occurrence
and duration of each startup,
shutdown, or malfunction.
4. When actions taken during a
startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are not consistent
with the procedures specified
in the SSM plan, records of
the actions taken for that
event.
3 Records of performance tests, as All results of performance
required in 63.10(b)(2)(viii). tests, including analysis of
samples, determination of
emissions, and raw data.
4 Records for each continuous Records required in Tables 5
parameter monitoring system. and 6 of this subpart to show
continuous compliance with
each emission limit and work
practice standard that applies
to you.
5 Records of closed-loop systems...... Records certifying that a
closed-loop system is in use
for cellulose ether
operations.
6 Records of nitrogen systems......... Records certifying that a
nitrogen system is in use for
carbon disulfide unloading and
storage operations.
7 Records of material balances........ 1. If use control device to
comply, monthly records that
include HAP usage and HAP
emissions at the inlet and
outlet to the control device
and the stack.
2. If use process changes to
comply, monthly records that
include the amount of HAP that
would have been used in the
absence of the process change,
the amount of HAP that was
used after the process change
was implemented, and the
amount of HAP emitted from the
process.
8 Records of calculations............. Documenting the percent
reduction in HAP emissions
using HAP usage and emissions
data from the material
balances and applicable
equations in Sec. 63.5545.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart UUUU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to Subpart UUUU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1................. Applicability......... Initial applicability Yes.
determination; applicability
after standard established;
permit requirements;
extensions, notifications.
Sec. 63.2................. Definitions........... Definitions for part 63 Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.3................. Units and Units and abbreviations for Yes.
Abbreviations. part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4................. Prohibited Activities. Prohibited activities; Yes.
compliance date;
circumvention, severability.
Sec. 63.5................. Construction/ Applicability; applications; Yes.
Reconstruction. approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a).............. Applicability......... General provisions apply unless Yes.
compliance extension; general
provisions apply to area
sources that become major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)....... Compliance Dates for Standards apply at [effective Yes.
New and Reconstructed date of the final rule]; 3
sources. years after [effective date of
the final rule]; upon startup;
10 years after construction or
reconstruction commences for
CAA Section 112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)........... Notification.......... Must notify if commenced Yes.
construction or reconstruction
after proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)........... [Reserved]............
[[Page 52207]]
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)........... Compliance Dates for Area sources that become major Yes.
New and Reconstructed must comply with major source
Area Sources That standards immediately upon
Become Major. becoming major, regardless of
whether required to comply
when they were an area source.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)....... Compliance Dates for Comply according to date in Yes.
Existing Sources. subpart, which must be no
later than 3 years after
[effective date of the final
rule]; for CAA Section 112(f)
standards, comply within 90
days of [effective date of the
final rule] unless compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)....... [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)........... Compliance Dates for Area sources that become major Yes.
Existing Area Sources must comply with major source
That Become Major. standards by date indicated in
subpart or by equivalent time
period (for example, 3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d).............. [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)....... Operation & Operate to minimize emissions Yes.
Maintenance. at all times; correct
malfunctions as soon as
practicable; operation and
maintenance requirements
independently enforceable;
information Administrator will
use to determine if operation
and maintenance requirements
were met.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)........... Startup, Shutdown, and Requirement for startup, Yes.
Malfunction Plan. shutdown, and malfunction and
SSM plan; content of SSM plan.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)........... Compliance Except You must comply with emission Yes.
During SSM. standards at all times except
during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)....... Methods for Compliance based on performance Yes.
Determining test, operation and
Compliance. maintenance plans, records,
inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)....... Alternative Standard.. Procedures for getting an Yes.
alternative standard.
Sec. 63.6(h).............. Opacity/Visible Requirements for opacity and No. Subpart UUUU has no
Emission (VE) visible emission limits. opacity or VE limits.
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)-(9)....... Compliance with You must comply with opacity/VE No. Subpart UUUU has no
Opacity/VE Standards. standards at all times except opacity or VE limits.
during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)...... Compliance Extension.. Procedures and criteria for Yes.
Administrator to grant
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(j).............. Presidential President may exempt source Yes.
Compliance Exemption. category from requirement to
comply with subpart.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)....... Performance Test Dates Dates for conducting initial Yes. Except for existing
performance test; testing and sources that is included
other compliance in Sec. 63.5540.
demonstrations; must conduct
180 days after first subject
to subpart.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)........... Section 114 Authority. Administrator may require a Yes.
performance test under CAA
Section 114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)........... Notification of Must notify Administrator 60 Yes.
Performance Test. days before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)........... Notification of If rescheduling a performance Yes.
Rescheduling. test is necessary, must notify
Administrator 5 days before
scheduled date of rescheduled
test.
Sec. 63.7(c).............. Quality Assurance/Test Requirement to submit site- Yes.
Plan. specific test plan 60 days
before the test or on date
Administrator agrees with;
test plan approval procedures;
performance audit
requirements; internal and
external QA procedures for
testing.
Sec. 63.7(d).............. Testing Facilities.... Requirements for testing Yes.
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)........... Conditions for Performance tests must be Yes. Performance tests
Conducting conducted under representative conducted under
Performance Tests. conditions; cannot conduct representative conditions
performance tests during SSM; for continuous process
not a violation to exceed vents, worst-case
standard during SSM. conditions for batch
process vents, as
specified in Table 4 of
this subpart.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)........... Conditions for Must conduct according to Yes.
Conducting subpart and EPA test methods
Performance Tests. unless Administrator approves
alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)........... Test Run Duration..... Must have three test runs of at Yes.
least 1 hour each; compliance
is based on arithmetic mean of
three runs; conditions when
data from an additional test
run can be used.
Sec. 63.7(f).............. Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes.
Method. Administrator can grant
approval to use an alternative
test method.
[[Page 52208]]
Sec. 63.7(g).............. Performance Test Data Must include raw data in Yes.
Analysis. performance test report; must
submit performance test data
60 days after end of test with
the notification of compliance
status; keep data for 5 years.
Sec. 63.7(h).............. Waiver of Tests....... Procedures for Administrator to Yes.
waive performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)........... Applicability of Subject to all monitoring Yes.
Monitoring requirements in standard.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)........... Performance Performance Specifications in Yes.
Specifications. Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60
apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)........... [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)........... Monitoring with Flares Unless your subpart says Yes.
otherwise, the requirements
for flares in Sec. 63.11
apply.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)........... Monitoring............ Must conduct monitoring Yes.
according to standard unless
Administrator approves
alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)....... Multiple Effluents and Specific requirements for Yes.
Multiple Monitoring installing monitoring systems;
Systems. must install on each effluent
before it is combined and
before it is released to the
atmosphere unless
Administrator approves
otherwise; if more than one
monitoring system on an
emission point, must report
all monitoring system results,
unless one monitoring system
is a backup.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)........... Monitoring System Maintain monitoring system in a Yes.
Operation and manner consistent with good
Maintenance. air pollution control
practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)........ Routine and Follow the SSM plan for routine Yes.
Predictable SSM. repairs; keep parts for
routine repairs readily
available; reporting
requirements for SSM when
action is described in SSM
plan.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)....... SSM not in SSM plan... Reporting requirements for SSM Yes.
when action is not described
in SSM plan.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)...... Compliance with How Administrator determines if Yes.
Operation and source complying with
Maintenance operation and maintenance
Requirements. requirements; review of source
O&M procedures, records;
manufacturer's instructions,
recommendations; inspection.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)....... Monitoring System Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative emission of
parameter measurements; must
verify operational status
before or at performance test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)........... Continuous Monitoring CMS must be operating except No. Replaced with language
System (CMS) during breakdown, out-of in Sec. 63.5560.
Requirements. control, repair, maintenance,
and high-level calibration
drifts.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii)... Continuous Monitoring COMS must have a minimum of one No. Subpart UUUU does not
System (CMS) cycle of sampling and analysis require CEMS.
Requirements. for each successive 10-second
period and one cycle of data
recording for each successive
6-minute period; CEMS must
have a minimum of one cycle of
operation for each successive
15-minute period.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)........... COMS Minimum COMS minimum procedures........ No. Subpart UUUU has no
Procedures. opacity or VE limits.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)........... CMS Requirements...... Zero and high level calibration No. Replaced with language
check requirements; out-of- in Sec. 63.5545.
control periods.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)....... CMS Requirements...... Out-of-control periods, No. Replaced with language
including reporting. in Sec. 63.5580(c)(6).
Sec. 63.8(d).............. CMS Quality Control... Requirements for CMS quality No, except for
control, including requirements in Sec.
calibration, etc.; must keep 63.8(d)(2).
quality control plan on record
for 5 years; keep old versions
for 5 years after revisions.
Sec. 63.8(e).............. CMS Performance Notification, performance No. Subpart UUUU does not
Evaluation. evaluation test plan, reports. require performance
evaluation tests for the
CPMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)....... Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Administrator to Yes.
Method. approve alternative monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)........... Alternative to Procedures for Administrator to No. Subpart UUUU does not
Relative Accuracy approve alternative relative require relative accuracy
Test. accuracy tests for CEMS. tests for the CPMS.
[[Page 52209]]
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(4)....... Data Reduction........ COMS 6-minute averages No. Replaced with language
calculated over at least 36 in Sec. 63.5545(a).
evenly spaced data points;
CEMS 1-hour averages computed
over at least four equally
spaced data points; data that
cannot be used in average.
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)........... Data Reduction........ Data that cannot be used in Yes. These requirements
computing averages for CEMS are applicable to CPMS.
and COMS.
Sec. 63.9(a).............. Notification Applicability and State Yes.
Requirements. delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5)....... Initial Notifications. Submit notification subject 120 Yes.
days after [effective date of
the final rule]; notification
of intent to construct/recon-
struct; notification of
commencement of construct/
recon-struct; notification of
startup; contents of each.
Sec. 63.9(c).............. Request for Compliance Can request if cannot comply by Yes.
Extension. date or if installed BACT/LAER.
Sec. 63.9(d).............. Notification of For sources that commence Yes.
Special Compliance construction between proposal
Requirements for New and promulgation and want to
Source. comply 3 years after
[effective date of the final
rule].
Sec. 63.9(e).............. Notification of Notify Administrator 60 days Yes.
Performance Test. prior.
Sec. 63.9(f).............. Notification of VE/ Notify Administrator 30 days No. Subpart UUUU has no
Opacity Test. prior. opacity or VE limits.
Sec. 63.9(g).............. Additional Notification of performance No. Subpart UUUU does not
Notifications When evaluation; notification using require CEMS.
Using CMS. COMS data; notification that
exceeded criterion for
relative accuracy.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6)....... Notification of Contents; due 60 days after end Yes. Except subpart UUUU
Compliance Status. of performance test or other has no opacity or VE
compliance demonstration, limits.
except for opacity/VE, which
are due 30 days after; when to
submit to Federal vs. State
authority.
Sec. 63.9(i).............. Adjustment of Procedures for Administrator to Yes.
Submittal Deadlines. approve change in when
notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j).............. Change in Previous Must submit within 15 days Yes.
Information. after the change.
Sec. 63.10(a)............. Recordkeeping/ Applies to all, unless Yes.
Reporting. compliance extension; when to
submit to Federal vs. State
authority; procedures for
owners of more than one source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1).......... Recordkeeping/ General Requirements; keep all Yes.
Reporting. records readily available;
keep for 5 years.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(iv).. Records related to Occurrence of each of operation Yes.
Startup, Shutdown, (process equipment);
and Malfunction. occurrence of each malfunction
of air pollution equipment;
maintenance on air pollution
control equipment; actions
during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (vi), (x)- CMS Records........... Malfunctions, inoperative, out- Yes.
(xi). of-control; calibration
checks, adjustments,
maintenance.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (vii)- Records............... Measurements to demonstrate Yes. Except subpart UUUU
(ix). compliance with emission has no opacity or VE
limits; performance test, limits and does not
performance evaluation, and VE require CEMS.
observation results;
measurements to determine
conditions of performance
tests and performance
evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (xii).... Records............... Records when under waiver...... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (xiii)... Records............... Records when using alternative No. Subpart UUUU does not
to relative accuracy test. require CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (xiv).... Records............... All documentation supporting Yes.
initial notification and
notification of compliance
status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3).......... Records............... Applicability determinations... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)- Records............... Additional records for CMS..... No. Subpart UUUU does not
(15). require CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)...... Records............... Records of excess emissions and No. Replaced with language
parameter monitoring in Sec. 63.5585.
exceedances for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1).......... General Reporting Requirement to report.......... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2).......... Report of Performance When to submit to Federal or Yes.
Test Results. State authority.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3).......... Reporting Opacity or What to report and when........ No. Subpart UUUU has no
VE Observations. opacity or VE limits.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4).......... Progress Reports...... Must submit progress reports on Yes.
schedule if under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5).......... Startup, Shutdown, and Contents and submission........ Yes.
Malfunction Reports.
[[Page 52210]]
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)...... Additional CMS Reports Must report results for each No. Subpart UUUU does not
CEM on a unit; written copy of require CEMS.
performance evaluation; three
copies of COMS performance
evaluation.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3).......... Reports............... Excess emission reports........ No. Replaced with language
in Sec. 63.5580.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) (i)-(iii) Reports............... Schedule for reporting excess No. Replaced with language
emissions and parameter in Sec. 63.5580.
monitor exceedance (now
defined as deviations).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) (iv)-(v). Excess Emissions Requirement to revert to No. Replaced with language
Reports. quarterly submission if there in Sec. 63.5580.
is an excess emissions and
parameter monitor exceedance
(now defined as deviations);
provision to request
semiannual reporting after
compliance for 1 year; submit
report by 30th day following
end of quarter or calendar
half; if there has not been an
exceedance or excess emission
(now defined as deviations),
report contents is a statement
that there have been no
deviations.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) (iv)-(v). Excess Emissions Must submit report containing No. Replaced with language
Reports. all of the information in Sec. in Sec. 63.5580.
63.10(c)(5-13), Sec.
63.8(c)(7-8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) (vi)- Excess Emissions Requirements for reporting No. Replaced with language
(viii). Report and Summary excess emissions for CMSs (now in Sec. 63.5580.
Report. called deviations); requires
all of the information in Sec.
63.10(c)(5-13), Sec.
63.8(c)(7-8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(4).......... Reporting COMS data... Must submit COMS data with No. Subpart UUUU has no
performance test data. opacity or VE limits.
Sec. 63.10(f)............. Waiver for Procedures for Administrator to Yes.
Recordkeeping/ waive.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11................ Flares................ Requirements for flares........ Yes.
Sec. 63.12................ Delegation............ State authority to enforce Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.13................ Addresses............. Addresses where reports, Yes.
notifications, and requests
are sent.
Sec. 63.14................ Incorporation by Test methods incorporated by Yes.
Reference. reference.
Sec. 63.15................ Availability of Public and confidential Yes.
Information. information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 00-21073 Filed 8-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P