[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2970-2988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-89]



[[Page 2970]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0043; FRL-7416-8]
RIN 2060-AH03


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Primary Magnesium Refining

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for primary magnesium refining facilities. The 
EPA has identified primary magnesium refining facilities as a major 
source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. 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 
application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
    The HAP emitted by facilities in the primary magnesium refining 
source category include chlorine, hydrochloric acid, dioxin/furan, and 
trace amounts of several HAP metals. Exposure to these substances has 
been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects, including chronic 
and acute disorders of the blood, heart, kidneys, reproductive system, 
and central nervous system. Some of these pollutants are considered to 
be carcinogens, and all can cause toxic effects in humans following 
sufficient exposure.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 21, 2003.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by February 3, 2003, a public hearing will be held on 
February 6, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, 
by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed 
instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an 
alternate site nearby.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lula Melton, Metals Group, Emission 
Standards Division (C439-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-2910, electronic mail address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                     NAICS*                                      Examples of regulated entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Magnesium Refining...............       331419   Primary refiners of nonferrous metals by electrolytic methods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*North American Information Classification System.

    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 facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.9881 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.
    Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0043. The official public docket is 
the collection of materials that is available for public viewing in the 
Primary Magnesium Refining NESHAP Docket at the EPA Docket Center (Air 
Docket), EPA West, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, 
and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-
1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    Electronic Access. An electronic version of the public docket is 
available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, 
EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to 
submit or review public comments, access the index of the contents of 
the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public 
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select 
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets. 
Information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue, which is 
not included in the official public docket, will not be available for 
public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is 
that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket but will be available only in printed paper form in the official 
public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available 
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available 
docket materials through the docket facility identified in this 
document.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statue. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.
    Comments. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by 
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt 
by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the 
subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
submitted after the close of the comment period will be marked 
``late.'' The EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

[[Page 2971]]

    Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed 
below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and 
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your 
comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any 
disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying the disk 
or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of 
the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on 
the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy is that EPA will not 
edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided 
in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's 
electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to 
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go 
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket and follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select 
``search'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0043. The system is 
an anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment.
    Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0043. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an anonymous 
access system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket 
without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail 
system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses 
that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as 
part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and 
made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 
mailing address identified in this document. These electronic 
submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect or ASCII file format. Avoid 
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    By Mail. Send your comments (in duplicate, if possible) to: Primary 
Magnesium Refining NESHAP Docket, EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. 
EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, Room B108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0043.
    By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments (in duplicate, 
if possible) to: EPA Docket Center, U.S. EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 
Room B108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, 
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0043. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket Center's normal hours of operation as 
identified in this document.
    By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention 
Primary Magnesium Refining NESHAP Docket, Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0043.
    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through EPA's 
electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver information 
identified as CBI only to the following address: Ms. Lula Melton, c/o 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0043. You may claim 
information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of 
that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the 
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. 
Cassie Posey, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division (C439-02), 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0069, in 
advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the 
public hearing must also call Ms. Cassie Posey to verify the time, 
date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide 
interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments 
concerning these proposed emission standards.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 
a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed rules at 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.
    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 Source Category Is Affected by the Proposed Rule?
    D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From 
Primary Magnesium Refineries?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?
    B. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?
    C. What Are the Emission Limitations?
    D. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?
    E. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?
    F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
    G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. How Did We Select the Affected Source?
    B. How Did We Select the Pollutants?
    C. How Did We Determine the Bases and Levels of the Proposed 
Standards?
    D. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements?
    E. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
    F. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and 
Reporting Requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic 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 13175, 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 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP

[[Page 2972]]

and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and 
subcategories. The category of major sources covered by today's 
proposed NESHAP, Primary Magnesium Refining, was listed on July 16, 
1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that emit or have 
the potential to emit greater than 10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25 
tons/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 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 emissions control that is achieved in 
practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for 
existing sources cannot be less stringent than the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing 
sources (for which we have emissions information) in the category or 
subcategory or by the best-performing five sources (for which we have 
or could reasonably obtain emissions information) 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, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, 
and energy impacts.

C. What Source Category Is Affected by the Proposed Rule?

    Section 112(c) of the CAA requires us to list all categories of 
major and area sources of HAP for which we will develop national 
emission standards. We published the initial list of source categories 
on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). ``Primary Magnesium Refining'' is one 
of the source categories on the initial list. The listing was based on 
our determination that primary magnesium refining facilities may 
reasonably be anticipated to emit a variety of HAP listed in section 
112(b) in quantities sufficient to be major sources.
    The source category is comprised of one plant, US Magnesium 
Corporation located in Rowley, Utah. The plant produces magnesium from 
brine (salt water) taken from the Great Salt Lake. The production 
process concentrates the magnesium salts in the brine, then processes 
the brine to remove impurities that would affect metal quality. After 
the brine solution is converted to a powder mixture of magnesium 
chloride (MgCl2) and magnesium oxide in the spray dryers, 
the powder is conveyed to the melt/reactors. The melt/reactors melt the 
powder mixture and convert the remaining magnesium oxide to magnesium 
chloride by injecting chlorine into the molten salt. The purified 
molten salt is then transferred to the electrolytic cells where the 
molten magnesium chloride salt is separated into magnesium metal and 
chlorine by electrolysis. The electrolysis process passes a direct 
electric current through the molten magnesium chloride, causing the 
dissociation of the salt and results in the generation of chlorine gas 
and magnesium metal. The magnesium metal is then transferred to the 
foundry for casting into ingots for sale. The chlorine produced is 
piped to a chlorine plant where it is liquefied for reuse or sale.
    The HAP emitted from the primary magnesium refining process are 
chlorine, hydrochloric acid, dioxin/furan, and trace amounts of HAP 
metals. Emission controls include various combinations of wet scrubbers 
(venturi and packed-bed) for acid gas and particulate matter (PM) 
control.
    Chlorine is emitted from the melting and purification of reactor 
cell product and is controlled by conversion to hydrochloric acid in 
the chlorine reduction burner and subsequent absorption of the 
hydrochloric acid in venturi and packed-bed scrubber. Using these 
control technologies, upwards of 99.9 percent control of chlorine is 
achieved. The electrowinning of the melted magnesium chloride to 
magnesium metal produces as a by-product chlorine gas which is 
recovered at the chlorine plant. When the chlorine plant is inoperable, 
the chlorine produced at the electrolytic cells is routed to a series 
of packed-bed scrubbers which use ferrous chloride as the adsorbing 
medium.
    Hydrochloric acid is emitted from the spray drying and storage of 
magnesium chloride powder and the melting and purification of reactor 
cell product prior to the electrowinning process. Hydrochloric acid 
emissions are controlled by venturi and packed-bed scrubbers.
    Dioxin/furan are generated in the melt reactor and are subject to 
incidental control by the chlorine reduction burner and wet scrubbers 
used to control chlorine, hydrochloric acid (HCl), and PM.

D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From Primary 
Magnesium Refiners?

    Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of chlorine in humans 
can result in chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis, and pulmonary 
edema. At lower levels, chlorine is a potent irritant to the eyes, the 
upper respiratory tract, and lungs. Chronic long-term exposure to 
chlorine gas in workers has resulted in respiratory effects including 
eye and throat irritation and airflow obstruction. Animal studies have 
reported decreased body weight gain, eye and nose irritation, non-
neoplastic nasal lesions, and respiratory epithelial hyperplasia from 
chronic inhalation exposure to chlorine. No information is available on 
the carcinogenic effects of chlorine in humans from inhalation 
exposure. We have not classified chlorine for potential 
carcinogenicity.
    Hydrochloric acid is corrosive to the eyes, skin, and mucous 
membranes. Acute inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose and 
respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary edema in 
humans. Chronic occupational exposure to HCl has been reported to cause 
gastritis, bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Prolonged exposure to 
low concentrations may cause dental discoloration and erosion. No 
information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects 
of hydrochloric acid to humans. In rats exposed to hydrochloric acid by 
inhalation, altered estrus cycles have been reported in females and 
increased fetal mortality and decreased fetal weight have been reported 
in offspring. We have not classified hydrochloric acid for 
carcinogenicity.
    There are a variety of metal HAP contained in the PM emitted from 
the primary magnesium refining process. The principal HAP metals 
emitted include trace quantities of phosphorous and manganese. Health 
effects in humans have been associated with both deficiencies and 
excess intakes of manganese. Chronic exposure to low levels of 
manganese in the diet is considered to be nutritionally essential in 
humans, with a recommended daily allowance of 2 to 5 milligrams per 
day. Chronic exposure to high levels of manganese by inhalation in 
humans

[[Page 2973]]

results primarily in central nervous system effects. Visual reaction 
time, hand steadiness, and eye-hand coordination were affected in 
chronically-exposed workers. Manganism, characterized by feelings of 
weakness and lethargy, tremors, a mask-like face, and psychological 
disturbances, may result from chronic exposure to higher levels. 
Impotence and loss of libido have been noted in male workers afflicted 
with manganism attributed to inhalation exposures. We have classified 
manganese in Group D, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.
    Organic HAP such as chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans (CDD/F) 
have been detected in the melt/reactor exhaust. One CDD/F compound, 
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), commonly called 
dioxin) is listed singly as a HAP. Other CDD/F compounds, many of which 
cause adverse health effects in the same way as dioxin, are HAP under 
the definition of polycyclic organic matter. Exposure to CDD/F mixtures 
causes chloracne, a severe acne-like condition and has been shown to be 
extremely toxic in animal studies. Dioxin is known to be a 
developmental toxicant in animals causing skeletal deformities, kidney 
defects, and weakened immune responses in the offspring of animals 
exposed during pregnancy. Human studies have shown an association 
between dioxin and soft-tissue sarcomas, lymphomas, and stomach 
carcinomas. We have classified dioxin as a probable human carcinogen 
(Group B2).
    In addition to HAP, the proposed rule would also reduce particulate 
matter emissions which are controlled under national ambient air 
quality standards. Brief exposure to particulate matter has caused 
aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease and 
increased risk of premature death.
    We recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health 
experienced by exposed individuals can range from mild to severe. The 
extent and degree to which the health effects may be experienced 
depends on:
    [sbull] Pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-
life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence);
    [sbull] The ambient concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as 
influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain);
    [sbull] The frequency and duration of exposures; and
    [sbull] Characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., genetics, 
age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary 
significantly with the population.

II. Summary of Proposed Rule

A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?

    The affected source is each new or existing primary magnesium 
refinery. A new affected source is one constructed or reconstructed 
after January 22, 2003. An existing affected source is one constructed 
or reconstructed on or before January 22, 2003. The proposed rule 
covers emissions from spray dryers, the melt reactor system, the 
launder off gas system, and magnesium chloride storage bins.

B. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?

    The owner or operator of an existing affected source would have to 
comply by [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE 
Federal Register]. New or reconstructed sources that startup on or 
before [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register] must 
comply by [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register]. 
New or reconstructed sources that startup after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS 
PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register] must comply upon initial startup.

C. What Are the Emission Limitations?

    The proposed rule includes mass rate emission limits in pounds per 
hour (lbs/hr) for chlorine, hydrochloric acid, PM, and PM10. 
The emission limits are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

                                  Table 1.--Proposed Mass Rate Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Chlorine    HCL (lbs/   PM (lbs/     PM-10
                          Emission point                            (lbs/hr)       hr)         hr)      (lbs/hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spray Dryers.....................................................  ..........       200         100    .........
Magnesium Chloride Storage Bins..................................  ..........        47.5  ..........        2.7
Melt/Reactor System..............................................       100           7.2  ..........       13.1
Launder Off-Gas System...........................................        26.0        46.0        37.5  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule also includes emission limits for dioxin/furan 
expressed in nanograms of toxicity equivalents per dry standard cubic 
meter (ng TEQ/dscm) corrected to 7 percent oxygen. Dioxins/furans 
include a group of 17 chemicals or congeners that share certain similar 
chemical structures and biological characteristics. The 2, 3, 7, 8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin congener is the most well studied and the 
most toxic of these compounds. Scientists believe that dioxins cause 
effects in similar ways. Because of this and because exposure is 
typically to variable mixtures of dioxin-like compounds, we use 
toxicity equivalency factors (TEF) that compare the potential toxicity 
of each of the individual dioxin-like compounds to the relative 
toxicity of 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. With such factors, 
the toxicity for a mixture can be expressed in terms of its Toxicity 
Equivalents (TEQ), which is the amount of TCDD it would take to equal 
the combined toxic effect of all the dioxin-like compounds found in the 
mixture. To calculate the TEQ, the concentration of each dioxin-like 
compound is multiplied by its respective TEF.

D. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?

    All plants subject to the proposed rule would be required to 
prepare and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.6(e) of the NESHAP General 
Provisions. All plants must establish and meet operating limits for 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate. A written operation and 
maintenance plan is also required for control devices subject to an 
operating limit. The plan must describe procedures for monthly 
inspections and preventative maintenance requirements for control 
devices.

E. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    The proposed rule requires a performance test for each control 
device

[[Page 2974]]

to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable emission limits 
of chlorine, hydrochloric acid, PM, PM10, and dioxin/furan. 
The EPA Method 26 or 26A in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is the reference 
method for chlorine and hydrochloric acid. The reference method for PM 
is EPA Method 5 or 5D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The reference 
method for PM10 is EPA Method 201 in 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. The EPA Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is the 
reference method for dioxin/furan. The proposed rule would also require 
owners/operators to establish operating limits for scrubber pressure 
drop and scrubber water flow rate concurrent with the performance of 
the initial compliance tests.

F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    The proposed rule would require primary magnesium refineries to 
conduct performance tests at least twice during each title V operating 
permit term (at midterm and renewal) to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the emission limits. Plants would also be required to 
monitor operating parameters for control devices subject to operating 
limits and carry out the procedures in their operation and maintenance 
plan.
    For wet scrubbers, plants would be required to use continuous 
parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) to measure and record the hourly 
average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate. To demonstrate 
continuous compliance, plants would keep records documenting 
conformance with the monitoring requirements and the installation, 
operation, and maintenance requirements for CPMS.

G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    We selected the proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements to be consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 
CFR part 63, subpart A). One-time notifications are required by EPA to 
know what facilities are subject to the standards, if a facility has 
complied with the proposed rule requirements, and when certain events 
such as performance tests and performance evaluations are scheduled. 
Semiannual compliance reports containing information on any deviation 
from the proposed rule requirements are also required. These reports 
would include information on any deviation that occurred during the 
reporting period; if no deviation occurred, only summary information 
would be required. Consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 
CFR part 63, subpart A), we also require an immediate report of any 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction where the actions taken in response 
were not consistent with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 
This information is needed to determine if changes need to be made to 
the plan. Records would be required of information needed to document 
compliance with the rule requirements. These notifications, reports, 
and records are the minimum needed to ensure initial and continuous 
compliance.

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Did We Select the Affected Source?

    Affected source means the collection of equipment, activities, or 
both within a single contiguous area and under common control that is 
included in a CAA section 112(c) source category or subcategory for 
which a CAA section 112(d) standard or other relevant standard is 
established pursuant to CAA section 112. The affected source may be the 
same collection of equipment and processes as the source category or it 
may be a subset of the source category. For each rule, we decide which 
individual pieces of equipment and processes warrant separate standards 
in the context of the CAA section 112 requirements and the industry 
operating practices.
    We considered three different approaches for designating the 
affected source: the entire primary magnesium refinery, groups of 
emission points, and individual emission points. In selecting the 
affected sources for the proposed rule, we identified the HAP-emitting 
operations, the HAP emitted, and the quantity of HAP emissions from the 
individual or groups of emission points. We concluded that designating 
the entire primary magnesium refinery as the affected source is the 
most appropriate approach. This conclusion is consistent with the 
requirements for defining affected source provided in Sec.  63.2 of the 
General Provisions. The major emission points include each spray dryer, 
magnesium chloride storage bin, melt/reactor, and launder off-gas 
system. Therefore, the proposed rule includes requirements for the 
control of emissions from each spray dryer, magnesium chloride storage 
bin, melt/reactor, and launder off-gas system.

B. How Did We Select the Pollutants?

    The proposed standards would establish emission limits for 
chlorine, hydrochloric acid, PM, PM10, and dioxin/furan. 
Particulate matter was selected as a surrogate for HAP metal emissions 
which account for less than one-tenth of one percent of total PM 
emissions. The principal HAP metals emitted include trace quantities of 
phosphorous, manganese, and chromium, with lesser quantities of 
arsenic, antimony, and mercury. With the exception of elemental 
mercury, metal HAP emissions, when released, are a constituent of total 
PM. As a result, control technologies applied for PM control will 
coincidentally achieve comparable levels of control of these 
pollutants. Standards requiring good control of PM emissions will also 
achieve good control of metal HAP emissions. Establishing separate 
standards for these individual HAP would result in no additional 
reductions beyond that achieved using PM as a surrogate pollutant.
    Given that the US Magnesium refinery generates about three pounds 
of chlorine to each pound of magnesium produced, chlorine and 
hydrochloric acid are by far the most significant HAP pollutants 
potentially emitted from primary magnesium refining. As such, both 
chlorine and hydrochloric acid were selected for the proposed rule.
    Lastly, the proposed rule would establish a separate emission limit 
for dioxin/furan discharged from the melt/reactor stack because of the 
high toxicity associated with very low exposures to these compounds and 
their persistence and bioaccumulative effects in the environment.

C. How Did We Determine the Bases and Levels of the Proposed Standards?

    Since there is only one primary magnesium refinery in the source 
category, the MACT floor for both existing and new sources is 
established by the performance of each emissions control system 
operating at that source. We do not anticipate the construction of any 
new sources in this source category. The State of Utah, Department of 
Environmental Quality (UDEQ) issued a title V operating permit dated 
October 11, 2001 for US Magnesium Corporation. The permit contains 
emission limitations for chlorine, hydrochloric acid, PM, and 
PM10 established by the UDEQ. The permit does not contain 
limits for dioxin/furan.
    We conducted our own independent assessment of the emissions test 
data and concluded that the emission limitations established in the 
source's title V operating permit are appropriate and achievable. 
Although the limited test results indicate the permit limits are 
achievable, the data also show that the

[[Page 2975]]

plant is not significantly overachieving the limits. Therefore, we 
believe that the permit limits reasonably approximate actual emissions 
and performance and present an accurate picture of the level of control 
achieved by the best performing source.
    An underlying presumption when setting MACT standards is that all 
emission limitations must be complied with at all times. Consequently, 
when establishing MACT floors and ultimately a MACT standard, we must 
consider the long-term variability in performance expected to occur 
under reasonable worst-case conditions. We must assure that an ensuing 
standard reflects the level of emission control determined to be MACT. 
We must also assure that the standard is achievable under normal and 
recurring worst-case circumstances.
    As part of our development of the proposed MACT standard, we 
assessed the viability of requiring additional or different control 
equipment to obtain beyond-the-floor emissions reductions. Each control 
system on the four emission points (i.e., spray dryer stack, magnesium 
chloride storage bin stack, melt/reactor system stack, and launder off-
gas system stack) was evaluated to see if it was the best control 
equipment to achieve the maximum amount of reduction of chlorine, 
hydrochloric acid, PM, PM10, and dioxin/furan. For all four 
emission points, US Magnesium uses wet scrubbers (packed-bed and 
venturi scrubbers) to achieve the emission limits. We concluded that 
wet scrubbing systems are the most appropriate and practical control 
systems for chlorine, hydrochloric acid, PM, PM10, and 
dioxin/furan and that there is no other control equipment or methods of 
control that would be more effective for reducing their emissions 
taking into consideration cost and feasibility. Therefore, we 
determined that the emission limitations at the MACT floors also 
represent MACT.
    We also propose that the source prepare and operate according to a 
fugitive dust emission control plan that describes in detail the 
measures that will be put in place to control fugitive dust emissions 
from all unpaved roads and other unpaved operational areas. The 
existing fugitive dust emission control plan that has been approved as 
part of the source's title V permit would be acceptable.
Spray Dryers
    There are three spray dryers in the source category. The exhaust 
gas from each is controlled by two venturi scrubbers followed by a 
packed-bed scrubber. All three dryers are subject to Utah's PM emission 
limit of 100 lbs/hr. Each test was conducted according to EPA Method 5, 
and, as far as we know, under normal and representative operating 
conditions.
    We have seven PM emission tests for the three dryers. Dryers 01 and 
03 were tested in May 1997; dryers 01 and 02 were tested in December 
1997; and all three dryers were tested in June 2002. The May 1997 test 
includes seven runs, and the other two tests include three runs each. 
The test results of all seven tests range from 25 to 53 lbs/hr. The 
average and median values are 37 lbs/hr and 36 lbs/hr, respectively.
    We evaluated the existing State PM emission limit as an option for 
establishing the MACT floor. The test results recorded range from about 
one-fourth to one-half of the standard and average a little more than 
one-third of the standard. Considering that a reasonable margin of 
safety is necessary to assure continuous compliance, the existing State 
limit of 100 lbs/hr appears to be a reasonable proxy of actual 
performance, and as such, is appropriate for establishing the MACT 
floor. We have, therefore, determined the MACT floor for spray dryers 
to be the level of control indicated by the existing State limit of 100 
lbs/hr of PM.
    All three dryers are subject to Utah's hydrochloric acid emission 
limit of 200 lbs/hr. We have seven hydrochloric acid emission tests 
conducted according to EPA Method 26A for the three dryers. Dryers 01 
and 03 were tested in May 1997; dryers 01 and 02 were tested in 
December 1997; and all three dryers were tested in June 2002. The May 
1997 test included seven runs, and the other two tests included three 
runs each. Again, as far as we can determine, each test was performed 
under normal and representative conditions. The test results of all 
seven tests range from 51 to 82 lbs/hr and average 68 lbs/hr. The 
median value is also 68 lbs/hr.
    We evaluated the existing State hydrochloric acid emission limit as 
an option for establishing the MACT floor. The test results recorded 
range from about one-fourth to almost one-half of the standard and 
average about one-third of the standard. Considering that a reasonable 
margin of safety is necessary to assure continuous compliance, the 
existing State limit of 200 lbs/hr appears to be a reasonable proxy of 
actual performance, and as such, is appropriate for establishing the 
MACT floor. We have, therefore, determined the MACT floor for spray 
dryers to be the level of control indicated by the existing State limit 
of 200 lbs/hr of hydrochloric acid.
    We next examined possibilities for beyond-the-floor options. We 
concluded that the current multi-stage wet scrubbing system is the best 
available control technology for the removal of hydrochloric acid and 
particulate matter contained in the spray dryer discharge. Therefore, 
we have selected the mass rate emission limits established in the 
source's title V operating permit as MACT for both new and existing 
spray dryers.
Magnesium Chloride Storage Bins
    Magnesium chloride powder from the spray dryers is pneumatically 
conveyed to storage bins. The exhaust air from the conveyor contains 
particle matter and low levels of hydrochloric acid. The exhaust gases 
are directed to vertical packed-bed scrubbers where hydrochloric acid 
and particulate matter are removed.
    The source's title V operating permit limits hydrochloric acid to 
47.5 lbs/hr and PM10 to 2.7 lbs/hr. Packed bed scrubbers are 
used to achieve these emission limits. We do not have any emissions 
test data for this emission point. As such, we decided to adopt the 
source's title V operating permit limits for PM10 and 
hydrochloric acid. Emissions testing was recently conducted on the 
magnesium chloride storage bins, and we expect test results within a 
few weeks of publishing the proposed rule. This data will be added to 
the public docket as soon as we receive it, and we will consider the 
data and public comments prior to publication of the final rule.
    We evaluated this wet scrubbing system for any potential beyond-
the-floor control technology and concluded that the packed-bed scrubber 
system is the best available control technology for the removal of 
hydrochloric acid and particulate matter. Thus, we adopted the emission 
limits established in the source's title V operating permit as MACT.
Melt/Reactor
    The melt/reactor system melts and chlorinates dehydrated brine 
powder to produce high purity molten magnesium chloride feed for 
electrolysis. The melt/reactor off-gases are cooled in a quench tower 
and then enter a venturi scrubber where PM is removed. The off-gases 
are then directed to the chlorine reduction burner where they are 
combined with tail gases from the chlorine plant and burned with 
natural gas to form hydrochloric acid.
    The gases exit the chlorine reduction burner and enter a scrubber 
train where hydrochloric acid is recovered. The train consists of three 
packed bed

[[Page 2976]]

scrubbers in series followed by a venturi scrubber.
    We have two PM10 emission tests for the melt/reactor 
which were conducted in May 1995 and May 2000. Both tests were 
conducted in accordance with EPA Method 201, and as far as we can 
determine, each test was performed under normal and representative 
operating conditions. The test results range from 2.1 to 5.7 lbs/hr and 
average 3.9 lbs/hr.
    We evaluated the existing State limit as an option for establishing 
the MACT floor. The test results average about one-third of the 
standard. Considering that a reasonable margin of safety is necessary 
to assure continuous compliance, the existing State limit of 13.1 lbs/
hr appears to be a reasonable proxy of actual performance, and as such, 
is appropriate for establishing the MACT floor. We have, therefore, 
determined the MACT floor for the melt/reactor to be the level of 
control indicated by the existing State limit of 13.1 lbs/hr of 
PM10.
    We have two hydrochloric acid emission tests for the melt/reactor. 
The tests were conducted in May 1995 and May 2000 in accordance with 
Method 26A. We believe that each test was performed under normal and 
representative operating conditions. The May 1995 test results average 
3.2 lbs/hr, and the May 2000 test results average 2.8 lbs/hr. We 
evaluated the existing State limit as an option for establishing the 
MACT floor. A comparison of the State limit of 7.2 lbs/hr to the actual 
hydrochloric acid emissions data indicates that the State limit is a 
reasonable proxy of actual performance, and as such, is appropriate for 
establishing the MACT floor. Consequently, we determined the MACT floor 
for the melt/reactor to be the level of control indicated by the 
existing State limit of 7.2 lbs/hr of hydrochloric acid.
    We have two chlorine emission tests for the melt/reactor. The test 
were conducted in May 1995 and May 2000 in accordance with EPA Method 
26. The May 1995 test results average 21 lbs/hr, and the May 2000 test 
results average 50 lbs/hr. Again, we believe that each test was 
performed under normal and representative operating conditions. We 
evaluated the existing State limit as an option for establishing the 
MACT floor. A comparison of the State limit of 100 lbs/hr to the actual 
chlorine emissions data indicates that the State limit is a reasonable 
proxy of actual performance, and as such, is appropriate for 
establishing the MACT floor. Therefore, we determined the MACT floor 
for the melt/reactor to be the level of control indicated by the 
existing State limit of 100 lbs/hr of chlorine.
    We have source test data on dioxin/furan emissions from the melt/
reactor stack which indicates total dioxin/furan emissions on the order 
of 80 grams per year (g/year) and emissions expressed in terms of TEQ 
of less than 3 g/year. The current title V operating permit includes no 
limitations on the emissions of dioxin/furan or any surrogate 
pollutant.
    As previously stated, emission controls applied to the melt/reactor 
discharge include three packed bed scrubbers in series followed by a 
venturi scrubber for the control of hydrochloric acid and PM. Although 
not installed specifically for dioxin/furan control, we believe that 
some incidental control of dioxin/furan is in fact achieved by these 
scrubbers and that the floor level of control is represented by the 
available information on actual emissions. Specifically, we have data 
on two tests conducted in March of 1998 and May of 2000. Each test is 
comprised of three test runs conducted in accordance with EPA Method 
23.\1\ The 1998 TEQ test results range from 12.0 to 25.2 ng/dscm 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen and average 19 ng/dscm corrected to 7 
percent oxygen. The 2000 TEQ results range from 10.4 to 35.9 ng/dscm 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen and average 24 ng/dscm corrected to 7 
percent oxygen. The precision evidenced in the two tests, suggests that 
the variability due to process variations and control device 
performance is narrow, with the average results of both tests within +/
-20 percent. We chose the highest of the individual runs, i.e., 36 ng 
TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen as a representative value of the 
performance level that can be achieved. Thus, we have chosen 36 ng TEQ/
dscm as the MACT floor. The source plans to conduct additional 
emissions testing in the near-term. We expect the testing to occur 
between proposal and promulgation. In determining the final standard 
for dioxin/furan, we will consider the results of the new test in 
addition to public comments that we receive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Method 23--Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-
Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from Stationary Sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We evaluated this multi-stage scrubbing system for any potential 
improvement to go beyond-the-floor. We concluded that the current 
scrubbing system is the best control option for removal of chlorine, 
hydrochloric acid, and PM10. For dioxin/furan, we examined a 
beyond-the-floor alternative, and determined that the next increment of 
control beyond-the-floor is the installation of a baghouse equipped 
with a catalytic filter that destroys gaseous dioxins and furans. We 
estimate the additional capital cost of adding baghouses to be $650,000 
and the total annualized cost to be $390,000 per year. We estimate the 
emissions reductions to be 2.4 grams per year resulting in a cost per 
gram of total dioxin/furan reduction of $163,865. We believe that the 
high cost, coupled with the small reduction in dioxin/furan emissions, 
does not justify the beyond-the-floor alternative at this time. 
Consequently, we chose the floor level of control of 36 ng TEQ/dscm as 
MACT.
Launder Off-Gas System
    The launder off-gas system (LOG) collects fugitive emissions from 
the melt reactor area (i.e. hoods and launders). The collected fugitive 
gases enter a horizontally aligned packed scrubber where chlorine, 
hydrochloric acid, and particulate matter are removed by scrubbing with 
water. The LOG scrubbed gases are exhausted to the atmosphere, and the 
scrubber water is returned to the waste water collection system.
    We have three PM emission tests for the launder off-gas system. The 
launder off-gas system was tested in August 1993, July 1998, and 
January 1999 using EPA Method 5, and as far as we know, under normal 
and representative operating conditions. The test results of the three 
tests range from 2.6 to 19.1 lbs/hr and average 7.0 lbs/hr.
    We evaluated the existing State PM emission limit as an option for 
establishing the MACT floor. We compared the State limit of 37.5 lbs/hr 
to the actual PM emissions data. Considering that a reasonable margin 
of safety is necessary to assure continuous compliance, the existing 
State limit of 37.5 lbs/hr appears to be a reasonable proxy of actual 
performance, and as such, is appropriate for establishing the MACT 
floor. Therefore, we determined the MACT floor for the launder off-gas 
system to be the level of control indicated by the existing State limit 
of 37.5 lbs/hr of PM.
    We have three hydrochloric acid emission tests for the launder off-
gas system. The launder off-gas system was tested in August 1993, July 
1998, and January 1999 using EPA Method 26A. We believe that the tests 
were performed under normal and representative operating conditions. 
The test results of the three tests range from 6.84 to 32.6 lbs/hr and 
average 15.6 lbs/hr.
    We evaluated the existing State hydrochloric acid emission limit as 
an option for establishing the MACT floor.

[[Page 2977]]

Considering that a reasonable margin of safety is necessary to assure 
continuous compliance, the existing State limit of 46.0 lbs/hr appears 
to be a reasonable proxy of actual performance, and as such, is 
appropriate for establishing the MACT floor.
    Consequently, we determined the MACT floor for the launder off-gas 
system to be the level of control indicated by the existing State limit 
of 46.0 lbs/hr of hydrochloric acid.
    We have three chlorine emission tests for the launder off-gas 
system. The launder off-gas system was tested in August 1993 and 
January 1999 using EPA Method 26. We believe the tests were performed 
under normal and representative operating conditions. The test results 
of the three tests range from 16.6 to 25.9 lbs/hr and average 19.9 lbs/
hr.
    We evaluated the existing State chlorine emission limit as an 
option for establishing the MACT floor. Considering that a reasonable 
margin of safety is necessary to assure continuous compliance, the 
existing State limit of 26.0 lbs/hr appears to be a reasonable proxy of 
actual performance, and as such, is appropriate for establishing the 
MACT floor. Consequently, we determined the MACT floor for the launder 
off-gas system to be the level of control indicated by the existing 
State limit of 26.0 lbs/hr of chlorine.
    We evaluated potential beyond-the-floor options and concluded that 
the existing scrubber is the best available control technology for the 
removal of chlorine, hydrochloric acid, and PM contained in the launder 
off-gas system discharge. Therefore, we selected the emission limits 
established in the source's title V operating permit as MACT.

D. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    The proposed rule requires a performance test for each control 
device to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable PM, 
PM10, chlorine and hydrochloric acid limits using the 
specified testing methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. We have also 
specified procedures to ensure that control equipment is operating 
properly for initial compliance. Venturi scrubbers and packed-bed 
scrubbers must be monitored for scrubber water flow rate and pressure 
drop. If a facility uses controls other than wet scrubbers or packed-
bed scrubbers to control emissions from an affected source, the owner 
or operator would be required to send us a monitoring plan containing 
information on the type of device, performance test results, 
appropriate operating parameters to be monitored, operating limits, and 
operation and maintenance.

E. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    For continuous compliance, we chose periodic performance testing 
for PM, PM10, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, and dioxin/furan 
which is consistent with current permit requirements. In general, 
performance tests are repeated every 2.5 to 5 years, depending on the 
magnitude of the source. Consequently, we decided that performance 
tests should be repeated no less frequently than twice per permit term 
of a source's title V operating permit (at mid-term and renewal).
    We also specified procedures to ensure that control equipment is 
operated properly on a continuous basis. Venturi scrubbers and packed-
bed scrubbers must be monitored for pressure drop and scrubber water 
flow rate. If a facility uses controls other than wet scrubbers to 
control emissions from an affected source, the owner or operator would 
be required to send us a monitoring plan containing information on the 
type of device, performance test results, appropriate operating 
parameters to be monitored, operating limits, and operation and 
maintenance.

F. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    We selected the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements to be consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 
CFR part 63, subpart A). One-time notifications are required by EPA to 
know what facilities are subject to the standard, if a facility has 
complied with the rule requirements, and when certain events such as 
performance tests and performance evaluations are scheduled. Semiannual 
compliance reports containing information on any deviation from the 
proposed rule requirements are also required. These reports would 
include information on any deviation that occurred during the reporting 
period; if no deviation occurred, only summary information would be 
required. Consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A), we also require an immediate report of any startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction where the actions taken in response were not 
consistent with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. This 
information is needed to determine if changes to the plan need to be 
made. Records would be required of information needed to document 
compliance with the proposed rule requirements. These notifications, 
reports, and records are the minimum needed to ensure initial and 
continuous compliance.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

    Generally, we do not expect the impacts of the proposed rule to be 
very significant. Currently, the one operating refinery has all of the 
required air pollution control equipment in place and operating. The 
only impacts will be the estimated cost of $48,000 for the additional 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements required by the 
proposed rule.

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

    We seek full public participation in arriving at final decisions 
and encourage comments on all aspects of the proposed rule from all 
interested parties. You need to submit full supporting data and 
detailed analysis with your comments to allow us to make the best use 
of them. Be sure to direct your comments to the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center, Docket No. OAR-2002-0043 (see 
ADDRESSES).

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 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 a ``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 entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that the proposed rule is not a

[[Page 2978]]

``significant regulatory action'' because none of the listed criteria 
apply to this action. Consequently, the proposed rule 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 the 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 the agency'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, EPA must include a certification 
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA met the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely 
manner.
    The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. None of 
the affected facilities are owned or operated by State governments, and 
the proposed rule would not preempt any State laws that are more 
stringent. Therefore, it 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. In 
addition, the proposed rule is required by statute and, if implemented, 
will not impose any substantial direct compliance costs. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
proposed rule.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that 
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
    The proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus Executive order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175 and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on the proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

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, the 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 considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is technology based and not 
based on health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was 
performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide 
greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Further, the proposed 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, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the 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 the 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 the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory

[[Page 2979]]

proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or to the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost 
of the proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be less than 
$48,000. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to sections 202 and 
205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that the 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 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 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 
according to Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for 
NAICS code 331419 (i.e., Primary Magnesium Refining) of 1,000 or fewer 
employees; (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.
    Based on the above definition of small entities, the Agency has 
determined that there are no small businesses within this source 
category that would be subject to the proposed rule. Therefore, because 
the proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities, 
EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the proposed rule will 
be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information collection request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2098.01), and a copy may be obtained 
from Susan Auby by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, 
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail 
at [email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy also may be 
downloaded 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 NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of the CAA (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in 
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The proposed rule would require applicable one-time notifications 
required by the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) 
for each affected source. As required by the NESHAP General Provisions 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart A), all plants would be required to prepare 
and operate by a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Plants also 
would be required to prepare an operation and maintenance plan for 
capture systems and control devices subject to operating limits. 
Records would be required to demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
monitoring, operation, and maintenance requirements for capture 
systems, control devices, and monitoring systems. Semiannual compliance 
reports also are required. These reports would describe any deviation 
from the standards, any period a continuous monitoring system was out-
of-control, or any startup, shutdown, or malfunction event where 
actions taken to respond were inconsistent with startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan. If no deviation or other event occurred, only a 
summary report would be required. Consistent with the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), if actions taken in response to 
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction event are not consistent with the 
plan, an immediate report must be submitted within 2 days of the event 
with a letter report 7 days later.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information averaged over the first 3 years after [DATE 
THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register] is estimated to 
total 731 labor hours per year at a total annual cost of $43,289, 
including labor, capital, and operation and maintenance.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources; 
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or 
otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the 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 (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2136), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; and 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in 
any correspondence. Because OMB is required to make a decision 
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after January 22, 2003, a 
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it by February 21, 2003. The final rule will respond to any 
OMB or public comments on the information

[[Page 2980]]

collection requirements contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA 
to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and 
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus 
standards are technical standards (such as material specifications, 
test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or 
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with 
explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    The proposed rule involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to 
use EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 26, 26A, and 210 in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A. We conducted searches to identify voluntary 
consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable 
voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 2F, 2G, 
5D, 26, 26A and 201. The search and review results have been documented 
and placed in Docket OAR-2002-0043.
    The EPA invites comment on the compliance demonstration 
requirements in the proposed rule and specifically invites the public 
to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. 
Commenters should also explain why the proposed rule should adopt these 
voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's 
standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications 
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the 
recommendation, including method validation data.

I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 26, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart TTTTT to read as follows:
Subpart TTTTT--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Primary Magnesium Refining

What This Subpart Covers

Sec.
63.9880 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.9881 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.9882 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.9883 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations

63.9890 What emission limitations must I meet?
63.9891 What work practice standards must I meet for my fugitive 
dust sources?

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

63.9900 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

General Compliance Requirements

63.9910 What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

Initial Compliance Requirements

63.9911 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.9912 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.9913 What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for 
particulate matter and PM10?
63.9914 What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with chlorine and hydrochloric acid 
emission limits?
63.9915 What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with dioxin/furan limits?
63.9916 What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating 
limits?
63.9917 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations that apply to me?
63.9918 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation 
and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.9920 What are my continuous monitoring requirements?
63.9921 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my monitors?
63.9922 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance?
63.9923 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
limitations that apply to me?
63.9924 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.9925 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.9930 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.9931 What reports must I submit and when?
63.9932 What records must I keep?
63.9933 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.9940 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.9941 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.9942 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63--Emission Limitations
Table 2 to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors
Table 3 to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 
Emission Limits
Table 4 to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 
Emission Limits
Table 5 to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63

Subpart TTTTT--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Primary Magnesium Refining

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.9880  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) emitted from primary magnesium refineries. This 
subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and 
continuous compliance with all applicable emission limitations and 
operation and maintenance requirements.


Sec.  63.9881  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a primary 
magnesium refinery that is (or is part of) a major

[[Page 2981]]

source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions on the first 
compliance date that applies to you. Your primary magnesium refinery is 
a major source of HAP if it emits or has the potential to emit any 
single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of 
HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year.


Sec.  63.9882  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new and existing affected source 
at your primary magnesium refining facility.
    (b) The affected sources are each new and existing primary 
magnesium refining facility.
    (c) This subpart covers emissions from each spray dryer stack, 
magnesium chloride storage bins scrubber stack, melt/reactor system 
stack, and launder off-gas system stack at your primary magnesium 
refining facility.
    (d) Each spray dryer, magnesium chloride storage bins scrubber, 
launder off-gas system, and melt/reactor system at your primary 
magnesium refining facility is existing if you commenced construction 
or reconstruction of the affected source before January 22, 2003.
    (e) Each spray dryer, magnesium chloride storage bins scrubber, 
melt/reactor system, and launder off-gas system at your primary 
magnesium refining facility is new if you commence construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source on or after January 22, 2003. An 
affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition of 
reconstruction in Sec.  63.2.


Sec.  63.9883  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have an existing source, you must comply with each 
emission limitation and operation and maintenance requirement in this 
subpart that applies to you no later than [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date 
is on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must comply with each emissions limitation and operation 
and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you by 
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date 
is after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must comply with each emission limitation and operation 
and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you upon 
initial startup.
    (d) If your primary magnesium refinery is an area source that 
becomes a major source of HAP, the following compliance dates apply to 
you:
    (1) Any portion of the existing primary magnesium refinery 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 primary magnesium refinery must be in 
compliance with this subpart no later than 2 years after it becomes a 
major source.
    (e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in 
Sec.  63.9930. Several of these notifications must be submitted before 
the compliance date for your affected source.

Emission Limitations


Sec.  63.9890  What emission limitations must I meet?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart 
that applies to you.
    (b) For each wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate matter, 
particulate matter 10 (PM10), chlorine, hydrochloric acid, 
or dioxins/furans limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain 
the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate at or 
above the minimum level established during the initial or subsequent 
performance test.


Sec.  63.9891  What work practice standards must I meet for my fugitive 
dust sources?

    (a) You must prepare, and at all times operate according to, a 
fugitive dust emissions control plan that describes in detail the 
measures that will be put in place to control fugitive dust emissions 
from all unpaved roads and other unpaved operational areas.
    (b) A copy of your fugitive dust emissions control plan must be 
submitted for approval to the Administrator or delegated authority on 
or before the applicable compliance date for the affected sources as 
specified in Sec.  63.9881. The requirement to operate according to the 
fugitive dust emissions control plan must be incorporated by reference 
in the source's operating permit issued by the permitting authority 
under part 70 or 71 of this chapter.
    (c) You can use an existing fugitive dust emissions control plan 
provided it meets the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) The plan satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (2) The plan describes the current measures to control fugitive 
dust emission sources.
    (3) The plan has been approved as part of a State Implementation 
Plan or title V permit.
    (d) You must maintain a current copy of the fugitive dust emissions 
control plan on-site and available for inspection upon request. You 
must keep the plan for the life of the affected source or until the 
affected source is no longer subject to the requirements of this 
subpart.

Operation and Maintenance Requirements


Sec.  63.9900  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) As required by Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i), you must always operate and 
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels 
required by this subpart.
    (b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a 
written operation and maintenance plan for each control device subject 
to an operating limit in Sec.  63.9890(b). Each plan must address 
preventative maintenance for each control device, including a 
preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the 
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.

General Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.9910  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations and 
operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart at all times, 
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction as defined 
in Sec.  63.2.
    (b) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3).

Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.9911  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) As required in Sec.  63.7(a)(2), you must conduct a performance 
test within 180 calendar days of the compliance date that is specified 
in Sec.  63.9883 for your affected source to demonstrate initial 
compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) For each operation and maintenance requirement that applies to 
you where initial compliance is not

[[Page 2982]]

demonstrated using a performance test, you must demonstrate initial 
compliance within 30 calendar days after the compliance date that is 
specified for your affected source in Sec.  63.9883.
    (c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between January 
22, 2003 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either the 
proposed emission limitation or the promulgated emission limitation no 
later than [DATE 180 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or no later than 180 calendar days 
after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to Sec.  
63.7(a)(2)(ix).
    (d) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between January 
22, 2003 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], and you chose to comply with the proposed emission limit 
when demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct a second 
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the promulgated 
emission limit by [DATE 1 YEAR AND 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], or after 
startup of the source, whichever is later, according to Sec.  
63.7(a)(2)(ix).


Sec.  63.9912  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with all applicable emission limits in Table 1 to 
this subpart no less frequently than twice (at mid-term and renewal) 
during each term of your title V operating permit.


Sec.  63.9913  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for particulate 
matter and PM10?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your 
affected source according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and 
the specific conditions in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limits for 
particulate matter in Table 1 to this subpart, you must follow the test 
methods and procedures in paragraph (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter according to 
the following test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter:
    (i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of 
traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the 
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2F or 2G to determine the volumetric flow rate of 
the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5 or 5D, as applicable to determine the concentration of 
particulate matter.
    (vi) Method 201 or 201A, as applicable to determine the 
concentration of PM 10.
    (2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dry standard cubic feet 
of gas during each particulate matter or PM10 test run. 
Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test.
    (c) Compute the mass emissions rate for each test run using 
Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP22JA03.001

Where:

Elb/hr = Mass emissions rate of particulate matter or 
PM10 (lb/hr);
Cs = Concentration of particulate matter or PM10 
in the gas stream (gr/dscf);
Qstd = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas(dscfm);
60 = Conversion factor (min/hr); and
7000 = Conversion factor (gr/lb).


Sec.  63.9914  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with chlorine and hydrochloric acid 
emission limits?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your 
affected source according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and 
the conditions detailed in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limits for 
chlorine and hydrochloric acid in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 
follow the test methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
and (2)of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of chlorine and hydrochloric acid 
according to the following test methods in appendix A to part 60 of 
this chapter:
    (i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of 
traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the 
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2F or 2G to determine the volumetric flow of the 
stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 26 or 26A, as applicable, to determine the concentration 
of hydrochloric acid and chlorine.
    (2) Collect a minimum sample of 60 dry standard cubic feet during 
each test run for chlorine and hydrochloric acid. Three valid test runs 
are needed to comprise a performance test.
    (c) Compute the mass emissions rate for each test run using 
Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP22JA03.000

Where:
Elb/hr = Mass emissions rate of chlorine or hydrochloric 
acid (lb/hr);
Cs = Concentration of chlorine or hydrochloric acid in the 
gas stream (mg/dscm);
Qstd = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas (dscfm);
60 = Conversion factor (min/hr);
35.31 = Conversion factor (dscf/dscm); and
454,000 = Conversion factor (mg/lb).


Sec.  63.9915  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with dioxin/furan limits?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your 
affected source according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and 
the conditions detailed in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limits for 
dioxins/furans in Table 1 to this subpart, you must follow the test 
methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of dioxin and furan according to 
the following test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
    (i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of 
traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the 
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2F or 2G to determine the volumetric flow of the 
stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 23, as applicable to determine the concentration of 
dioxins/furans. For each dioxin/furan congener measured in accordance 
with this paragraph, multiply the congener concentration by its 
corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 2 to this 
subpart.
    (2) Collect a minimum sample of 100 dry standard cubic feet during 
each test

[[Page 2983]]

run. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test.


Sec.  63.9916  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating limits?

    (a) For a wet scrubber subject to operating limits for pressure 
drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec.  63.9890(b, you must 
establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures in 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Using the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) 
required in Sec.  63.9920, measure and record the pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate at least every 15 minutes during each run of 
the particulate matter performance test.
    (2) Compute and record the average pressure drop and scrubber water 
flow rate for each individual test run. Your operating limits are the 
lowest average individual pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate 
values in any of the three runs that meet the applicable emission 
limit.
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  63.9917  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations that apply to me?

    (a) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table 
1 to this subpart, you have demonstrated initial compliance if:
    (1) You meet the conditions in Table 3 to this subpart; and
    (2) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits for 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec.  63.9890(b), you 
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a 
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate measured 
during the performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.9915(a).
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  63.9918  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance by certifying in your 
notification of compliance status that you have met the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) You have prepared the operation and maintenance plan according 
to the requirements in Sec.  63.9910; and
    (2) You will operate each control device according to the 
procedures in the plan; and
    (3) You submit a notification of compliance status according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.9930.
    (b) [Reserved]

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.9920  What are my continuous monitoring requirements?

    For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits for pressure 
drop and scrubber water flow rates in Sec.  63.9890(b), you must at all 
times monitor the hourly average pressure drop and liquid flow rate 
using a CPMS according to the requirements in Sec.  63.9921(a).


Sec.  63.9921  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my monitors?

    (a) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.  
63.9890(b) for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate, you must 
install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the requirements 
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) For the pressure drop CPMS, you must:
    (i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that 
provides a representative measurement of the pressure and that 
minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and 
external corrosion.
    (ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch 
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 
percent of the pressure range.
    (iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily.
    (iv) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (2) For the scrubber water flow rate CPMS, you must:
    (i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a 
position that provides a representative flow and that reduces swirling 
flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 
disturbances.
    (ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 
percent of the flow rate.
    (iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually 
according to the manufacturer's instructions.
    (iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (b) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS for a wet 
scrubber according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) 
of this section.
    (1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 5-minute period.
    (2) Each CPMS must have valid data for at least 95 percent of every 
averaging period.
    (3) Each CPMS must determine and record the average of all recorded 
readings.


Sec.  63.9922  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) Except for monitoring 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 an affected source is operating.
    (b) 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 or to fulfill a minimum data availability requirement, 
if applicable. You must use all the data collected during all other 
periods in assessing compliance.
    (c) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring to provide valid data. 
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or 
careless operation are not malfunctions.


Sec.  63.9923  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations that apply to me?

    For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table 1 to 
this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance according to 
the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart.


Sec.  63.9924  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

    (a) For each emission point subject to an emission limit in Table 1 
to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements in Sec.  63.9900 by performing 
preventive maintenance for each control device according to Sec.  
63.9900(b) and recording all information needed to document conformance 
with these requirements.

[[Page 2984]]

    (b) You must maintain a current copy of the operation and 
maintenance plan required in Sec.  63.9900(b) on site and available for 
inspection upon request. You must keep the plans for the life of the 
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to 
the requirements of this subpart.


Sec.  63.9925  What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not 
meet each emission limitation in Sec.  63.9890 that applies to you. 
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must 
also report each instance in which you did not meet each operation and 
maintenance requirement required in Sec.  63.9900 that applies to you. 
These instances are deviations from the emission limitations and 
operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart. These 
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.9931.
    (b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. During periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with 
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (1) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  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 in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan.
    (2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e).

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.9930  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  
63.6(h)(4) and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) that apply 
to you by the specified dates.
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you startup your affected 
source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must submit your initial notification no later than 
[DATE 120 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register].
    (c) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(3), if you start your new 
affected source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register, you must submit your initial notification no 
later than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a notification 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).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other 
initial compliance demonstration, you must submit a notification of 
compliance status according to Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(ii).
    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include 
a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance 
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following 
completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
    (2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a 
performance test, 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).


Sec.  63.9931  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has 
approved a different schedule, you must submit a semiannual compliance 
report to your permitting authority according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(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.  
63.9883 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes 
after the compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec.  
63.9883.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your 
compliance report is due.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 20 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 comes 
first after 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 71, and if the permitting 
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports 
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(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 (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include 
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and, 
as applicable, paragraphs (b)(4) through (8) 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.
    (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 were no deviations from the continuous compliance 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.9923 and 63.9924 that apply to you, a 
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations 
or operation and maintenance requirements during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which a CPMS was out-of-control 
as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no 
periods during which the CPMS was out-of-control during the reporting 
period.
    (7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in Sec.  63.9890 
that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CPMS to 
comply with an emission limitation in this subpart, the compliance 
report must contain the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 
this section and the information in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of 
this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction.
    (i) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable and the 
corrective action taken.
    (8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an 
affected source where you are using a CPMS to comply with the emission 
limitation in this subpart, you must include the information in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section and the

[[Page 2985]]

information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (xi) of this section. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (ii) The date and time that each continuous monitoring was 
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring 
system was out-of-control, including the information in Sec.  
63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) 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.
    (v) 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.
    (vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period including those that are due to startup, shutdown, 
control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and 
other unknown causes.
    (vii) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring 
system downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of 
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total source 
operating time during the reporting period.
    (viii) A brief description of the process units.
    (ix) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
    (x) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system 
certification or audit.
    (xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems, 
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
    (c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had 
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting 
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction report according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
    (d) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V 
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 
71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the 
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report for an 
affected source along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring 
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6 
(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all the required 
information concerning deviations from any emission limitation or 
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart, submission of 
the compliance report satisfies any obligation to report the same 
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of 
compliance does not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to 
report deviations from permit requirements for an affected source to 
your permitting authority.


Sec.  63.9932  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the following records:
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
initial notification or 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)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as 
required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) You must keep the records required in Sec. Sec.  63.9932 and 
63.9933 to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and 
operating and maintenance requirement that applies to you.


Sec.  63.9933  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 off site for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.9940  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 4 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.


Sec.  63.9941  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or a delegated 
authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 
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 U.S. 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 subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are 
retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred 
to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.  
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.


Sec.  63.9942  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  63.2, and in this section as follows;
    Chlorine plant bypass scrubber means the wet scrubber that captures 
chlorine gas during a chlorine plant shut down or failure.
    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 limitation 
(including operating limits) or operation and maintenance requirement;
    (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 limitation in this subpart during 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such 
failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, or 
operating limit.
    Launder off-gas system means a system that collects chlorine and

[[Page 2986]]

hydrochloric acid fumes from collection points within the melt/reactor 
system building. The system then removes particulate matter and 
hydrochloric acid from the collected gases prior to discharge to the 
atmosphere.
    Magnesium chloride storage bins means vessels that store dried 
magnesium chloride powder produced from the spray drying operation.
    Melt/reactor system means a system that melts and chlorinates 
dehydrated brine to produce high purity molten magnesium chloride feed 
for electrolysis.
    Primary magnesium refining means the production of magnesium metal 
and magnesium metal alloys from natural sources of magnesium chloride 
such as sea water or water from the Great Salt Lake and magnesium 
bearing ores.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.  
63.2.
    Spray dryer means dryers that evaporate brine to form magnesium 
powder by contact with high temperature gases exhausted from gas 
turbines.
    Wet scrubber means a device that contacts an exhaust gas with a 
liquid to remove particulate matter and acid gases from the exhaust. 
Examples are packed-bed wet scrubbers and venturi scrubbers.

Tables to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63

    As required in Sec.  63.9890(a), you must comply with each 
applicable emission limit in the following table:

       Table 1 to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63.--Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      You must comply with each of the
             For . . .                         following . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each spray dryer stack.........  a. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain particulate
                                     matter in excess of 100 lbs/hr; and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain hydrochloric
                                     acid in excess of 200 lbs/hr.
2. Each magnesium chloride storage  a. You must not cause to be
 bins scrubber stack.                discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain hydrochloric
                                     acid in excess of 47.5 lbs/hr or
                                     0.35 gr/dscf; and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain PM10 in excess
                                     of 2.7 lbs/hr or 0.016 gr/dscf.
3. Each melt/reactor system stack.  a. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain PM10 in excess
                                     of 13.1 lbs/hr; and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain hydrochloric
                                     acid in excess of 7.2 lbs/hr; and
                                    c. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain chlorine in
                                     excess of 100 lbs/hr; and
                                    d. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain 36 ng TEQ/dscm
                                     to 7% oxygen.
4. Each launder off-gas system      a. You must not cause to be
 stack.                              discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain particulate
                                     matter in excess of 37.5 lbs/hr;
                                     and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain hydrochloric
                                     acid in excess of 46.0 lbs/hr; and
                                    c. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain chlorine in
                                     excess of 26.0 lbs/hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 2 to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63.--Toxic Equivalency Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Toxic
                  Dioxin/furan congener                     equivalency
                                                              factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin...............           1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............           0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............           0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............           0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............           0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.........           0.01
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin........................           0.001
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran...................           0.1
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran.................           0.5
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran.................           0.05
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................           0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................           0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................           0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................           0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran.............           0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran.............           0.01
octachlorinated dibenzofuran............................           0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 3 to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emissions
                                 Limits
As required in 63.9916, you must demonstrate initial compliance with the
            emission limits according to the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        You have demonstrated initial
             For . . .                       compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each spray dryer stack.........  a. The average mass flow of
                                     particulate matter from the control
                                     system applied to emissions from
                                     each spray dryer, measured
                                     according to the performance test
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.9913(c),
                                     did not exceed 100 lbs/hr; and

[[Page 2987]]

 
                                    b. The average mass flow of
                                     hydrochloric acid from the control
                                     system applied to emissions from
                                     each spray dryer, determined
                                     according to the performance test
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.9914(c),
                                     did not exceed 200 lbs/hr.
2. Each magnesium chloride storage  a. The average mass flow of
 bins scrubber stack.                hydrochloric acid from the control
                                     system applied to the magnesium
                                     chloride storage bins scrubber
                                     exhaust, measured according to the
                                     performance test procedure in Sec.
                                      63.9914, did not exceed 47.5 lbs/
                                     hr; and
                                    b. The average mass flow of PM10
                                     from the control system applied to
                                     the magnesium chloride storage bins
                                     scrubber exhaust, determined
                                     according to the performance test
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.9913, did
                                     not exceed 2.7 lbs/hr.
3. Each melt/reactor system stack.  a. The average mass flow of PM10
                                     from the control system applied to
                                     the melt/reactor system exhaust,
                                     measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.9913, did not exceed 13.1 lbs/
                                     hr; and
                                    b. The average mass flow of
                                     hydrochloric acid from the control
                                     system applied to the melt/reactor
                                     system exhaust, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.9914, did not exceed
                                     7.2 lbs/hr; and
                                    c. The average mass flow of chlorine
                                     from the control system applied to
                                     the melt/reactor system exhaust,
                                     measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.9914, did not exceed 100 lbs/
                                     hr.
                                    d. The average concentration of
                                     dioxins/furans from the control
                                     system applied to the melt/reactor
                                     system exhaust, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.9915, did not exceed
                                     36 ng TEQ/dscm to 7% oxygen.
4. Each launder off-gas system      a. The average mass flow of
 stack.                              particulate matter from the control
                                     system applied to the launder off-
                                     gas system collection system
                                     exhaust, measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.9913, did not exceed 37.5 lbs/
                                     hr; and
                                    b. The average mass flow of
                                     hydrochloric acid from the control
                                     system applied to the launder off-
                                     gas system collection system
                                     exhaust, measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.9914, did not exceed 46.0 lbs/
                                     hr; and
                                    c. The average mass flow of chlorine
                                     from the control system applied to
                                     the launder off-gas system
                                     collection system exhaust, measured
                                     according to the performance test
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.9914, did
                                     not exceed 26.0 lbs/hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 4 to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With
                             Emission Limits
     As required in Sec.   63.9923, you must demonstrate continuous
  compliance with the emission limits according to the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       You must demonstrate continuous
             For . . .                       compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each spray dryer stack.........  a. Maintaining emissions of PM10 at
                                     or below 100 lbs/hr; and
                                    b. Maintaining emissions of
                                     hydrochloric acid at or below 200
                                     lbs/hr; and
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at mid-term and renewal).
2. Magnesium chloride storage bins  a. Maintaining emissions of
 scrubber stack.                     hydrochloric acid at or below 47.5
                                     lbs/hr or 0.35 gr/dscf; and
                                    b. Maintaining emissions of PM10 at
                                     or below 2.7 lbs/hr or 0.016 gr/
                                     dscf; and
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at mid-term and renewal).
3. Each melt/reactor system stack.  a. Maintaining emissions of PM10 at
                                     or below 13.1 lbs/hr; and
                                    b. Maintaining emissions of
                                     hydrochloric acid at or below 7.2
                                     lbs/hr; and
                                    c. Maintaining emissions of chlorine
                                     at or below 100 lbs/hr; and
                                    d. Maintaining emissions of dioxins/
                                     furans at or below 36 ng TEQ/dscm
                                     to 7% oxygen.
                                    e. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     test at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at mid-term and renewal).
4. Each launder off-gas system      a. Maintaining emissions of
 stack.                              particulate matter at or below 37.5
                                     lbs/hr; and
                                    b. Maintaining emissions of
                                     hydrochloric acid at or below 46.0
                                     lbs/hr; and
                                    c. Maintaining emissions of chlorine
                                     at or below 26.0 lbs/hr; and
                                    d. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at mid-term and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table 5 to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart TTTTT of Part 63
  As required in Sec.   63.9950, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
                                part 63, subpart A) shown in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Applies to Subpart
               Citation                         Subject                   TTTTT                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1.................................  Applicability...........  Yes.                    .......................
63.2.................................  Definitions.............  Yes.                    .......................
63.3.................................  Units and Abbreviations.  Yes.                    .......................
63.4.................................  Prohibited Activities...  Yes.                    .......................

[[Page 2988]]

 
63.5.................................  Construction and          Yes...................
                                        Reconstruction.
63.6(a)-(g)..........................  Compliance with           Yes...................
                                        Standards and
                                        Maintenance
                                        Requirements.
63.6(h)..............................  Determining Compliance    No.                     .......................
                                        with Opacity and
                                        Visible Emission
                                        standards.
63.6(i)-(j)..........................  Extension of Compliance   Yes.                    .......................
                                        and Presidential
                                        Compliance Exemption.
63.7(a)(1)-(2).......................  Applicability and         No....................  Subpart TTTTT specifies
                                        Performance Test Dates.                           performance test
                                                                                          applicability and
                                                                                          dates.
63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h)..................  Performance Testing       Yes.                    .......................
                                        Requirements.
63.8 except for (a)(4),(c)(4), and     Monitoring Requirements.  Yes.                    .......................
 (f)(6).
63.8(a)(4)...........................  Additional Monitoring     No....................  Subpart TTTTT does not
                                        Requirements for                                  require flares.
                                        Control Devices in Sec.
                                          63.11.
63.8(c)(4)...........................  Continuous Monitoring     No....................  Subpart TTTTT specifies
                                        System Requirements.                              requirements for
                                                                                          operation of CMS.
63.8(f)(6)...........................  Relative Accuracy Test    No....................  Subpart TTTTT does not
                                        Alternative (RATA).                               require continuous
                                                                                          emission monitoring
                                                                                          systems.
63.9.................................  Notification              Yes                     .......................
                                        Requirements.
63.9(g)(5)...........................  Data Reduction..........  No....................  Subpart TTTTT specifies
                                                                                          data reduction
                                                                                          requirements.
63.10 except for(b)(2)(xiii) and       Recordkeeping and         Yes.                    .......................
 (c)(7)-(8).                            Reporting Requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(xiii)....................  Continuous Monitoring     No....................  Subpart TTTTT does not
                                        System (CMS) Records                              require continuous
                                        for RATA Alternative.                             emission monitoring
                                                                                          systems.
63.10(c)(7)-(8)......................  Records of Excess         No....................  Subpart TTTTT specifies
                                        Emissions and Parameter                           recordkeeping
                                        Monitoring Accedences                             requirements.
                                        for CMS.
63.11................................  Control Device            No....................  Subpart TTTTT does not
                                        Requirements.                                     require flares.
63.12................................  State Authority and       Yes.                    .......................
                                        Delegations.
63.13-63.15..........................  Addresses, Incorporation  Yes.                    .......................
                                        by Reference,
                                        Availability of
                                        Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 03-89 Filed 1-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P